Christian Movement Says Husbands NEED To Keep Their Wives In Line
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 10:57
VIEWED: 23566
PAGE 4 of 9
Oh, I know it's been around. But it hasn't really been mainstream.
But now there's all these Twilight fans and 50 Shades of Grey fans running around. And you'll never recognize any of them by looking at them.
...Unless the 50 Shades fans are wearing handcuffs as a fashion statement, because... I've seen that. And I knew, because they were reading 50 shades at the time too, and I thought, WHY. WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN.
Still, paranoia fuel.
And they all might fall for something like this. Which, I think, is why these ideas are even gaining traction.
Otherwise there is NO REASON for these ideas to be popular, and I'm not sure I want to live in a world where dangerously abusive ideas like these can become mainstream on their own. I need people to be smarter than that. Don't take it away from me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think women who read this drivel deserve some credit. A majority of them probably knows it's drivel and enjoys it as a form of escapism. All the women I know who read either of those described it as such, among them survivors of real-life abusive relationships, curiously enough.
Those vulnerable to being influenced by books like this, to their actual detriment, are probably already vulnerable due to other aspects of their environment/upbringing/social circle/young age.
And I'm saying this as someone who cannot bring herself to read that stuff, even to make fun of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I think women who read this drivel deserve some credit. A majority of them probably knows it's drivel and enjoys it as a form of escapism. All the women I know who read either of those described it as such, among them survivors of real-life abusive relationships, curiously enough.
Those vulnerable to being influenced by books like this, to their actual detriment, are probably already vulnerable due to other aspects of their environment/upbringing/social circle/young age.
And I'm saying this as someone who cannot bring herself to read that stuff, even to make fun of it.
True. Which is why I think things might turn out okay here, with the ones who don't fall for it deftly avoiding the situation, and the ones too young/inexperienced/susceptible will learn some very important lessons if they try it out.
However, it also has to be said that a majority of the people who were reading those books could not possibly have been reading them for the irony. So there is some suggestion of enjoying the themes and indicates a surprisingly wide spread pop-culture belief that those themes are "romantic."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Given that the "Christian Domestic Discipline" covers itself with the idea that it is done "out of love for Jesus" and is "ordained by God", why has no church DENOUNCED it? By staying silent, they are essentially allowing Jesus' name to be used to sanction it. One can easily go further, given the history of the "Christian" church--and especially the Catholic one--when it comes to women, and extrapolate that it is convenient for the church NOT to condemn it outright, but to benefit from it by staying silent.
As others have noted, the history of the "Christian" church is replete with the subjugation of women via Church doctrine. Magon's cite of Paul's letter to the Ephesians is QUITE clear on the point, and this movement is nothing more than an extension of that. ANY time religion is utilized to support something, it will have adherents, and it will have more weight than just individuals choosing to do something. To argue that is just silly.
KPO is absolutely on point: "the danger with this movement is that women may be manipulated into consenting because they're taught it's their religious duty to submit". When cloaked in a veil of religion, many things become more powerful, it has been that way throughout history.
It's no more than an extension of "Catholic" beliefs, as what Magons cited clearly shows: Quote:
The teaching that men and women are meant to have different roles clearly indicates that changes are needed in our society today.
Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
... women should not be law enforcement officers... Women should not be soldiers. Women should not be military officers with authority over male soldiers.
... A wife sins against God if she rejects her husband's authority over her
That puts it directly in the category of "SIN" to reject a husband's authority. So if a husband wants to follow CDD, and the wife rejects it, according to Catholic Planet's, Roman Catholic theologian and translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the holy Bible (his credentials here: http://ronconte.wordpress.com/my-credentials-as-a-roman-catholic-theol
ogian/).
I think once you try to argue that it's no different than non-religious S&M, that it's just a bunch of "mostly anonymous folks", or that "some" people will be manipulated, you lose your argument. This "discipline" is a direct extension of "Christian" and Catholic teaching throughout history; to try and divorce it from the religion is disingenuous at best.
And yes, Byte, one commentator made the same leap you did, in fact went further:Quote:
...here’s where it all leads… Fifty Shades of Gray. Not even trying to hide it; it’s promoting the book and its thesis of sexual domination.
.....
In this particular case, written in very sophomoric Fifty Shades of Grayish vernacular (if you read the book, you know what I mean – “oh crap” and all). I half expected to see pink hearts and smiley faces embedded. Let me just say this: if you enjoyed the juvenile sexual blatherings of that book, you will likely enjoy these sites. Their essays. The lifestyle. The whole issue of spanking for Jesus. Otherwise… yeah.
.....
Again, Fifty Shades of Gray. The whole “rolling her eyes” bit is a running theme in that book and clearly that book is a theme for the whole movement. Which makes the depth and dimension of it about as deep as the dialogue written for Christian Gray and Anastasia, his submissive gal-pal (Half an inch? Quarter? Can there be a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer fails also in claiming I "conflate the actions of a few thousand CDD adherents with Christianity at large." Nowhere did I do so.
Really?
Quote:
Given that the "Christian Domestic Discipline" covers itself with the idea that it is done "out of love for Jesus" and is "ordained by God", why has no church DENOUNCED it? By staying silent, they are essentially allowing Jesus' name to be used to sanction it. One can easily go further, given the history of the "Christian" church--and especially the Catholic one--when it comes to women, and extrapolate that it is convenient for the church NOT to condemn it outright, but to benefit from it by staying silent.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki will vilify Christianity for the exact same thing for which she gives Islam a complete pass.
Shocker!
( No, not really )
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
Resident USA Freedom Fundie
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You two will write anything to try and get someone's goat, won't you? Too bad you can't make sense in your trolling.
The official "Christian church" is a MINUTE fraction of the number of Christians out there, and if you think it's lily white and pure as the driven snow, you're simply a hypocrite. I have nothing against the religion itself, but how those in power in it have used every religion, I often have disagreement with. I question the actions of many in power in Democracy, that doesn't equate to Democracy at large. You make no sense in your accusations. Never once did I attack "a large and diverse group of people who'd probably agree with her that CDD is wrong." I attacked the MOVEMENT of CDD, and intimated the "church" might find it advantageous to not condemn it. Period.
What Rap said is pure, unadulterated trolling and merely illustrates stupidity beyond belief. Orrr...has anyone ever considered that Rap might be PN's pretending-to-be-somewhat-saner, pretending-to-be-somewhat-more-socially-acceptable sockpuppet? That sentence is STRAIGHT out of PN's repertoire...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Niki will vilify Christianity for the exact same thing for which she gives Islam a complete pass.
Shocker!
( No, not really )
Not sure why she has such a hate for Christians.
She started out claiming that CDD was SANCTIONED by "The Church" (as if all Christian denominations were a doctrinally unified whole), but when called on it failed to provide any proof.
Now she's going on about how "The Church" (You know, that big unity of stick-figure gay-hating, wife-beating, n****r-lynching Christians - sort'a like a redneck Illuminati, I guess) failed to CONDEMN the CDD movement, which hardly anyone really knew about until the Daily Beast and Huffpost articles within the past week or so (If she didn't spend so much time trolling "hate Conservatives" sites, she probably wouldn't have heard of CDD either). I'd suspect CDD was hardly on any particular denomination's radar until just this week, and most would figure it falls under their previous CONDEMNATION of domestic abuse.
"The United Methodist Church condemns both domestic violence and sexual abuse as violations of a person’s sacred worth. The Social Principles condemn family violence in all forms. They also acknowledge the abuser’s “need of God’s redeeming love.”"
http://umchealthyfamilies.org/in-the-news/social-principles-on-the-nur
turing-community
"On Sunday, Jan. 9, an interfaith documentary that explores faith groups’ efforts to support the victims of domestic violence begins airing on ABC-affiliated stations around the country.
The documentary, I Believe You: Faiths’ Response to Intimate Partner Violence, was made possible with the support of an interfaith group that includes Presbyterian Women of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the New York Board of Rabbis, the Presbyterians Against Domestic Violence Network, United Methodist Women, the Evangelical Church in America, the National Council of Churches and a consortium of Muslim organizations."
http://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/1/7/pcusa-backed-domestic-violence-spec
ial-begins-airi/
"Therefore be it RESOLVED, That we recognize domestic violence as one of the serious moral issues of our time, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage local churches to be involved in local programs of ministry for those involved in domestic violence, and that we encourage pastors to utilize available resources such as public and voluntary organizations which can aid them in ministering to families touch by domestic violence, and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we encourage the establishment of clear and responsible public policy related to domestic violence, which policy should be effective at the local, state, and national levels."
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=1078
"As pastors of the Catholic Church in the United States, we state as clearly and strongly as we can that violence against women, inside or outside the home, is never justified. Violence in any form"—physical, sexual, psychological, or verbal"—is sinful; often, it is a crime as well. We have called for a moral revolution to replace a culture of violence. We acknowledge that violence has many forms, many causes, and many victims—men as well as women."
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/do
mestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm
"The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America condemned domestic violence at its 1995 Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis."
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=347
"Resolved, That the 73rd General Convention of the Episcopal Church call upon state governments to promote and enact statutes addressing the reduction of domestic violence and the protection of victims of domestic violence and child neglect."
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resol
ution=2000-D073
"When your heart breaks, you choose
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki: There is even more of a religious connection in that the writer of Twilight is very openly Mormon, and the Mormon culture is very much about women as second class citizens who are reliant upon their husbands for everything. (and it comes through in the narrative of that series too)
The "oh crap" vernacular in 50 shades is a holdover from when 50 shades was actually written as a Twilight fanfiction (with typical censored Mormon vernacular), before all the names were changed.
So yeah, very strong connection between all of this as far as I can tell. Adding the biblical twist and the ridiculous "nice guy" philosophical elements is not entirely unexpected.
It's basically combining the worst elements of "I'm a nice guy so you HAVE to choose me over the bad boy," with "I'm looking for true love, someone to protect me" and then they add "OR YOU'LL GO TO HELL" as the bittersweet cherry on top.
Charming. Maybe they'll all pair up together and leave the rest of us alone. Meanwhile I'll pass.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you, Byte, that was both interesting and informative. Mormon wrote it, eh? I left Mormonism very soon after being "dunked" because of their racism; I wasn't aware their sexism was so prevalent. Given their earlier belief in polygamy, I don't find it surprising.
Thank you, Geezer, it's good to know they condemn domestic violence. I will await word that they condemn CDD specifically, however, as it doesn't consider itself domestic violence OR domestic abuse.
Your point still fails completely, and here's why. I put up a post about ONE ASPECT of Christianity which I believe is bad. I also put up a post about one aspect of Buddhism which I decry just as loudly. Buddhism IS my chosen faith, so by your twisted logic, I must hate IT, as well, since I'm willing to decry the actions of "a few thousand" of its adherents and the Buddhist monk they follow. Your attempts to belittle me, hence, fail.
The difference is that the Dali Lama, the only titular "head" of Buddhism, is quite clear about Wirathu:Quote:
Dalai Lama condemns anti-Muslim violence in Burma
LONDON, England – With video footage and other evidence continuing to emerge of atrocities against Muslims in Burma, the Dalai Lama has publicly condemned the violence that has left hundreds dead and an estimated hundreds of thousands homeless, IANS reported on Wednesday (April 24th). http://khabarsouthasia.com/en_GB/articles/apwi/articles/newsbriefs/201
3/04/25/newsbrief-04]Quote:
The Dalai Lama recently spoke with Channel 4 News, passionately discussing the violence against the Rohingya in Burma.
U Wirathu was mentioned, and the Dalai Lama clearly stated that not only is he wrong in his despicable actions, and that all individual life, according to Buddhist Monk traditions, must be valued and honored. "Buddhists must recognize that different people follow different religions...and we must respect all life." https://www.facebook.com/uscampaignforburma/posts/10151623836450948]Quote:
Many other Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama, have spoken out against the violence and condemned the Burmese monks.
The Dalai Lama, after the riots in March, said killing in the name of religion was “unthinkable” and urged Myanmar’s Buddhists to contemplate the face of the Buddha for guidance.
Phra Paisal Visalo, a Buddhist scholar and prominent monk in neighboring Thailand, says the notion of “us and them” promoted by Myanmar’s radical monks is anathema to Buddhism. http://shambhalasun.com/news/?s=rakhine&cat=1
I decry any religion which is used to abuse anyone. I am hoping authorities in the Christian church speak out against CDD in time, and will happily applaud them when they do. It doesn't matter WHAT religion is involved. So go ahead with your vitriolic personal assassination, it's only in your head.
"If she didn't spend so much time trolling "hate Conservatives" sites, she probably wouldn't have heard of CDD either" is also a blatant lie and you know it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME