God's Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows

It becomes a little confusing when there’s discussion and acknowledgement of the role of religion in general in domestic violence, and still when talking about alternatives there is no mention about the logical option of just dropping all unreasonable belief in god.

Why insist with religion being a woman when you come to the conclusion that it favours men and denigrates women?
Is it because one would have to admit, among other things, that it was written by men, not god? Isn’t it obvious by now? What is the counter-argument? What is the great fear of accepting this conclusion?

I don’t understand the insistence on offering biblical/theological critiques to religion. If they have to changed, they will cease to be what they were, they will be something else. So, in a sense, it won’t be the original religion anymore. It would be like a secular adaptation of religion. It doesn’t make sense. A crooked tree will remain crooked.

But which lord will you serve by following the bible nikosd99?

The lord that commands you to stone your adulterous daughter or the lord that holds a grudge (you brought up Genesis) forever?

How about the Lord that tells you where to get your slaves from and when to offer them their freedom (but not the freedom of their families) but never condemns slavery as wrong?

Or is it the story of Noah and the flood where god decided that all of mankind, save a handful, should be destroyed? How many 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 year-olds that you know are so evil that they need to be put to death?

Or is it the story of the lord that who lead his people in the wilderness and after watching Israel's children die of hunger and thirst, commanded Moses to kill as many as possible for complaining about no food or drink?

Which stories in the bible do you have to ignore in order to conclude there's a loving god?

Reply to Asoders22,

Many women marry far too quickly. How long do the vast majority of women who are abused know their husbands before they get married? Did they look to see how the men interacted with their own families? Did they see how they treated female members of their own familiies? Did they talk to the men they were going to marry about such issues as money, children, careers, religion etc.? Did the women see that they checked up on their whereabouts before marriage? Any signs of temper problems before marriage? Any signs, even subtle signs, of trying to control? I wonder just how many abused women jumped into marriage and never thought about any of the questions I posed. Marriage is a serious committment, not to be taken lightly. One needs to ask the question, "Do I know this man well enough to share my life with him for the next 40, 50, 60 years?" Women often put their jobs or careers behind those of their husbands, making them economically dependent on their husbands. That is a dumb move.

Maybe you need to find out how well abused women looked at the men they chose to marry. Abused women are not a top priority for me. Women who allow themselves to be in a subordinated position has played a great role in it, and I find them pathetic. I have never been around abusive men, nor I am submissive in any way. Amazing that I know many, many good men.

The theology of "submissiveness" is badly understood. I have a hard time believing Ms. Thistlewaite hasn't read essays like the one at the url that follows. If she has read arguments like these, she apparently discards the scholarship that produced them (and this one was written by a woman, no less):

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0004.html

Anti-femal comments in "Pauls" epistles.

If you accept that all of Paul's epistles are authentic then:

from 1 Tim 2:8—15 then women:

1. You should learn in silence.

2. You are not allowed to teach or have authority over me or any other man or be in charge of any meeting.

3. You must keep quiet especially in meetings (you will be disgraced if you do).

4. Have no fancy hair styles or wear gold ornaments, pearls, or have expensive dresses.

5. You and your female counterparts are responsible for all this suffering. i.e. your poor conduct in the magic garden. Shame be upon you!!!!

6. You must have children to make up for your conduct.

I highly recommend Professor Crossan's In Search of Paul. It explains the misconceptions currently present about Paul's anti-female rhetoric. I believe even the Vatican would agree with Crossan on this matter.

From another source: Dr. H. Wayne House, President and Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Oregon Theological Seminary, and Distinguished Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Faith Seminary, Tacoma, WA. and Adjunct Professor of Law, Trinity Law School of Trinity International University http://www.hwhouse.com/Current%20Articles%20Downloads/Theology/paul.htm

"This means, of course, that the passage (1 Cor 11:2—16) cannot be used as a source for determining Paul’s attitude toward the proper status and role of women. If the authenticity of 1 Tim 2:8—15; Tit 2:3—5; Eph 5:22—33; Col 3:18—19; and 1 Cor 14:33—36 (or 34—35 {1 Cor 14}) is similarly rejected on critical grounds, as I am inclined to do, then the genuine Pauline corpus contains none of the passages which advocate male supremacy and female subordination in any form.

On the contrary, the only ‘direct Pauline statement on the subject is Gal 3:28, which insists on absolute equality in Christ."

From J.D. Crossan's, In Search of Paul, p. 111.

"In Paul's theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity. "

ANUSED8 Said: Sounds like you're the one that has been "brainwashed" by a very one sided portrayal of Christianity. Jesus Camp in no way portrays typical Christian youth activities. The youth at our church are involved in activities like collecting food for the poor, serving meals at homeless shelters and visiting and assisting the elderly in our community. Unfortunately, the media won't show that side of religion - only the extremists or the religious leaders who make mistakes.

Reply: Don't you see, you don't need church to take part in helping the homeless or the elderly or for any other good you choose to do. However, you do need it to justify the sort of terrible things we see on a daily basis. The extremists wouldn't exist were the indoctrination and dogma not there in any way, shape, or form in the first place.

Well said, BLERT and GROUSE1. What's even more scary is that Thistlethwaite is not only a professor, but was the 11th President of Chicago Theological Seminary. In adddition to having a Ph.D, she graduated Summa Cum Laude with a Master of Divinity degree from Duke University. That's scary, too.

She recently stepped down from her position as President of CTS and there was speculation that she might be in contention for the position of General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ, of which she is an ordained minister. When questioned on that possibility, Thistethwaite responded, "No, I will not be UCC General Minister and President under any circumstances...I feel no call to that ministry and I do feel called to what I am doing now."

I wonder who called her to her present ministry. From what I read of her hostility towards Christianity and God's Word, I'm sure it wasn't Christ. In fact, if she's a Christian, I just might be Jesus Christ. (Forgive me, Lord, just a little humor there)

Perhaps she stepped down as President of CTS because she feels that she may be tapped for some important position on the ObamaNation team. You know, having Chicago connections and all. Wow, that's the scariest thought of all ~ Thistlethwaite taking over Billy Graham's position as minister to the Presidents. In my opinion, that would certainly hasten Obama's former minister's dream of G.D.A. Incidentally, Jerimiah Wright is also an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ.

Unfortunately, the unsaved don't know the difference between "religion" and Christianity.

Of course Psycmeistr, as you criticize NancyNyberg for not picking up on your sarcasm, you then make the leap to understand Brooks-Thislewaite's real motivation.

I took her comments more generally as an admonition against religions that preach that the subservience of women is absolute and used the familiar traditions underscoring Christianity to illustrate.

I guess you ignored her conclusion which said that this is not a Christian or Muslim problem but a humanity problem. I couldn't agree with her more.

I'd like edbyronadams to explain his/her post a little. Are you saying that low numbers of children are caused by increasing independence of women?

I would say it's very difficult to predict biological evolution. Are you saying that the natural biological course for humanity is to have as many children as possible?

During a time before we understood nutrition and disease, the number of babies who survived a year hovered around 50%. For species survival, families had to have lots of children and there were evolutionary benefits from that -- especially since most of the work was done on farms.

Large families, especially in the US, are no longer an evolutionary advantage. In fact, given American culture, it's probably a disadvantage.

Again, atheists, faith-bashers, Bill Maher sycophants, please go play somewhere else. No one wants to listen to your drivel. It adds nothing to the conversation of this topic. In short, people of faith do not care what you have to say. It is nonsense.

But the good Revered Thistlewaite might want to join you based on her constant bashing of faith. I always wondered what the title "Reverend" means for someone who has taken a vow to nothing or does not live some exemplary life of service to God. Rev Al Sharpton, Rev Louie Farrahkan.... Who gave them that title. I do not see them as particularly holy or reverant.

I digress. The article throws up so many straw men and jousts at such a wide variety of windmills that I wonder what faith the author is affiliated with. People have been abusing others since time began. This unfortunately also applies in the spousal sense. This has nothing to do with the Christian faith. In the faith traditions of husbands being the spiritual head of the household and the woman being a submissive helpmate, it is actually the husband who should be doing the most submission. Really. If that is not occuring, argue about that. But the concept referred to has sustained the nuclear family for millenia. The tradition is that men are to love their wives as Christ loved his church - which he died for. So the cowards hiding behind some biblical right to hurt their spouse are shameful. But the use of faith improperly by people who do not live their faith is no reason to attack various traditions and concepts that are proven good for the nuclear family and are sustainable in a loving family.

And knocking the virtue of suffering and redemptive suffering is new age nonsense. Redemptive suffering takes all forms. And who exactly is this author to tell someone that there is not good in the suffering they offer up. What utter arrogance. Really, what faith do you affiliate with theological professor? Again, I apologize not for some coward who hurts his spouse and then says take the pain for Jesus. But this article is just a collection of "this one time, at band camp........." anecdotal nonsense, that I question the credentials of this self proclaimed theology professor and "reverend".

You have an axe to grind with traditional faith. Just be honest and dont try to hide behind some "care for spouse abuse" mantra. There is little link between abuse and faith in a truly Christ-centered home. Islam and some of the other faiths are a different story. I cannot speak for them.

Lancet study: Fire a major killer of Indian women
By SAM DOLNICK, Associated Press Writer

Monday, March 2, 2009

(03-02) 06:08 PST NEW DELHI, India (AP) --
More than 100,000 young women were killed in fires in India in a single year, and many of those deaths were tied to domestic abuse, according to a new study published Monday.

Young Indian women are more than three times as likely to killed by fire as their male compatriots, according to an article published on the Web site of the British medical journal, The Lancet. The victims largely fell within a 15 to 34-year age group.

PGR88 writes: "I don't know what kind of Church Thistlethwait attends, but promotion of spousal abuse or "subordination of women" is certainly not heard at ANY of the Christian churches I have been to."

Well, then, you have apparently never been to any fundamentalist or conservative evangelical churches. If you had, you would know that that kind of "submission" rhetoric is endemic to those traditions. I'm told by Islamic scholars that the word "Islam" means "submission". How ironic that the conservative Christians, who attempt to evangelize Muslims, and the Muslims, whom they are trying to evangelize, for all there differences, nevertheless agree on this salient point: women are basically cattle who are to be, by whatever means, kept in line. IMHO, both groups need to be evangelized by those of us who are sane, regardless of our differing religious labels. JIM

As with Islam, Christianity must clean up its books especially in regards to those passages that demean women. These passages should be deleted as they are outdated or historically and/or theologically wrong.

e.g.

1. "He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). from Professor Bruce Chilton in his book Rabbi Paul

2. The Epistle to Timothy was not written by Paul but by a pseudo Paul and therefore does not belong in the NT. Ditto for Colossians.

ref. In Search of Paul by Professors JD Crossan (On Faith panelist) and Jonathan Reed, pp. 105-118.

An Introduction to the New Testament by Father Raymond Brown.

AMUSED8 WRITES:
FredZuber writes:

“You want abuse, get religion.”
“It’s not just spousal abuse. Religion demands submission from everyone. There’s plenty of abuse to go around. All you have to do is join a religion and become a fanatic, which seems easy to do when you’re talking religion. One example I’ve cited many times is “Jesus Camp,” a documentary about Fundamentalist camp that brainwashes children.
Reply:
Sounds like you're the one that has been "brainwashed" by a very one sided portrayal of Christianity. Jesus Camp in no way portrays typical Christian youth activities. The youth at our church are involved in activities like collecting food for the poor, serving meals at homeless shelters and visiting and assisting the elderly in our community. Unfortunately, the media won't show that side of religion - only the extremists or the religious leaders who make mistakes.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Of course. What was I thinking. Just give the religicos free reign and they’ll be glad to “indoctrinate” everyone in the right way of thinking. If anyone sees “Jesus Camp” it won’t be hard to see the patterns religions take to coerce its “followers” to their path. That pattern has been there throughout history. Sometimes it’s more subdued than others, but it’s always lurking under the surface. That can’t be denied. Give religion its way, and we’ll have the good old days of the Spanish Inquisition and burning witches in Salem. Don’t you just miss that? And what was the justification for all those actions? In the name of religion? Somebody tell me what the real justification is, because there isn’t any. Maybe someone can find justification in the Bible. Yeah, right. There’s another piece of mythology that’s wasted on the mindless lemmings. Religions have one thing in common, that’s keeping the flock in control. Can’t have a flock without coercion of one form or another. It’s either brainwashing as in “Jesus Camp” or more subtle, like a soup kitchen to demonstrate the good of the church. If “Jesus Camp” isn’t enough, try “Religulous” for a better mix of nonsense from religions and their sects.

FredZuber writes:
It’s not just spousal abuse. Religion demands submission from everyone. There’s plenty of abuse to go around. All you have to do is join a religion and become a fanatic, which seems easy to do when you’re talking religion. One example I’ve cited many times is “Jesus Camp,” a documentary about Fundamentalist camp that brainwashes children.

Reply:
Sounds like you're the one that has been "brainwashed" by a very one sided portrayal of Christianity. Jesus Camp in no way portrays typical Christian youth activities. The youth at our church are involved in activities like collecting food for the poor, serving meals at homeless shelters and visiting and assisting the elderly in our community. Unfortunately, the media won't show that side of religion - only the extremists or the religious leaders who make mistakes.

First of all, my wife is my partner, 50-50 in all the decisions made in our home.

Secondly, if I ever demanded she be submissive to me, she would laugh in my face and tell me where to go.

Thirdly, if I ever did lay a hand on her, I'm pretty sure she'd wait fro me to go to sleep, and then bash my skull in with a baseball bat. Well, maybe that's harsh, but I can guarantee our marriage would be over. And who could blame her besides the fundies?

“You want abuse, get religion.”

It’s not just spousal abuse. Religion demands submission from everyone. There’s plenty of abuse to go around. All you have to do is join a religion and become a fanatic, which seems easy to do when you’re talking religion. One example I’ve cited many times is “Jesus Camp,” a documentary about Fundamentalist camp that brainwashes children. If what you see in the film isn’t child abuse, I don’t know what is. Of course, that same kind of thinking gets transmitted to the rest of the family. Spousal abuse. Child abuse. Not very far from each other. Let’s not forget the abuser, who is also abused, but not by the family members. Whatever religion is being practiced is abusing the abuser because of his impotence. You have to have courage to stand up to a religion and say that it’s wrong.

B2O2 wrote:
Why do Christians insist on putting this book forth as divinely written, and then brush aside the passages that make "God" look like a psychopathic maniac? If you're going to apologize for him, as in "God was just having a testy day when he wrote the Old Testament", then you're no better off than the women who dismiss the actions of their violent partners with one excuse after another.

Reply:
We must keep in mind that Jesus spoke against the Pharisees, who were the religious leaders of his day, and their obsessiveness with the hundreds of laws listed in the Old Testament. Jesus' teachings were based on two basic commandments:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and all your strength - and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus made it very simple - religion is all about love - love for God and love for others. Religion is so much more than saying "I follow all of the rules so I'm better than you." Sadly, it seems that many of us are making the same mistakes the Pharisees did and have lost sight of how Jesus wants us to live our lives.

That being said, I feel that the author is totally off base with this article. As I stated in an earlier post, if Rev. Thistlewaite is going to quote from Paul in the book of Ephesians, she should also include what Paul writes about how a husband is supposed to treat his wife:

Colossians 3:19
And you husbands must love your wives and never treat them harshly.
Ephesians 5:25
And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her.

And Peter from 1 Peter 3:7 wrote:
In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard.

Peter’s statement that “she is your equal partner” what a radical statement 2,000 years ago when women had practically no rights. If anything, Christianity should be given some credit for being an early advocate of women’s rights even if there have been some failures as well.

I have attended many churches over the years, none of which would ever condone spousal abuse. To somehow imply that Christianity condones or even leads to spousal abuse is truly misleading and an injustice to all the good work churches do to help abused women.

PS - the ones to blame are not the victims. The ones to blame are abusive, controlling men. If you know you are one - seek therapy. Now. Even if you are full of excuses and think it's "her fault". If you intimidate, scare, threaten or/and beat her - find therapy.

Quote: " Maryann261:

In this country, which is a free country, women have themselves to blame for allowing themselves to be put in subordinate positions. They should get some backbone. Why do women choose men who are abusive?"

---

This is mainly a myth. Most abusive men appear nice, thoughtful and loving at first. Abuse comes slowly, first aiming at taking away the wife's self esteem and isolating her. Since she is in love and believes she and her husband have a great report, she has a hard time seeing this. When battering starts, he is usually full of tears, love and regret afterwards. Soon, she is ashamed of having choosing this life and trying to do everything to not "provoke" him. Also, the environment rarely reacts.

When she tries to leave, the threats come. He'll kill her, he'll kill the children, he'll get custody of them. She has maybe no money of her own and nowhere to go. Those cases many times end up with the woman being killed.

Between a good equal marriage and one that ends in murder, there is a large grey zone. Wife abusers are often accomplished con men, difficult to spot, and friends and family often believe the battered wife is exaggerating or lying. Allt they see is this swell guy. And now she want to split and kidnap their children...?

Learn before you talk. This is a major problem in society.

Thistlethwait suffers from the blindness of relativism, and stupidly provides shelter to those are are attacking her own faith (indeed if she has one).

Spousal abuse common in the Mid-East? Thistlethwait's knee-jerk response: Well, Christians are of course just as bad! See, Christianity's own greatest apostle was a mysogynist!

I don't know what kind of Church Thistlethwait attends, but promotion of spousal abuse or "subordination of women" is certainly not heard at ANY of the Christian churches I have been to.

In this country, which is a free country, women have themselves to blame for allowing themselves to be put in subordinate positions. They should get some backbone. Why do women choose men who are abusive? There are plenty of men who are not abusive at all. I do not respect women who cannot stand up for themselves. Until these sorry excuses for women develop a backbone, they will remain the same sorry lot. That is their choice.

It's long past time to quit giving feminists and feminist clerics a pass for making arguments of the form, "It rained today, men are aqueous beasts;" "there's a drought, men are arid beasts."

The author writes, "As the Chicago Tribune recently reported, there is an epidemic of teen 'date battering'." Then, she adds, "Christian sanction for domestic violence is deeply rooted in our religious tradition."

Am I the only person on earth who reads that and doubts that there is any connection whatsoever between the epidemic and the tradition? I haven't met a lot of teens today whose parents would know a religious tradition if it bit them on the leg - let alone the teens knowing it.

Reston75, if the Bible is "God's word", then He is a bloodthirsty and demented child killer. In Deuteronomy 21:18-21, "He" counsels parents of stubborn and misbehaving kids to drag them to the village square and have the townspeople stone them to death.

Why do Christians insist on putting this book forth as divinely written, and then brush aside the passages that make "God" look like a psychopathic maniac?
-----------

Good point. Christians swear they are "new testament" neighbor loving, turn the cheek, help the poor... but whenever they want to drop their fake commitment to the teachings of Jesus they embrace the "old testament" to justify violence, murder and wars.

Monkeys with car keys.

Domestic abuse is a human sickness, in every country, every religion, every race.

Where are the statistics comparing American domestic violence with Iran or any other Arab country, or whites vs arabs, christian vs moslem, etc?

Susan, I read your column today on the evil of domestic violence and religion's role in its perpetuation. But your words ring hollow to me. You see I vividly recall how you ignored the sexism and misogyny during the Democratic primary that assaulted Hillary Clinton and even added your own ugly attacks on her, misusing scripture to malign the first viable female presidential candidate in America. You, Rev. Wright, and Father Pfleger were quite a triumvirate in Hillary hatred spewing forth from Trinity UCC.

Of course, Obama kept silent about the sexism and misogyny for after all he
benefited from the abuse Clinton endured.

It was not surprising that after the election, Obama's head speech writer, Jon Favreau, and a drunken friend were photographed sexually molesting a life-size cardboard cutout of newly appointed secretary of state Clinton.

Posted on Facebook, that photo shot around the internet, sending the message to the rest of the world that America thinks its okay to oppress even women in leadership roles.

In 2008, I lost respect for the so-called liberal media, the Democratic party, and you and your friends at Trinity.

It saddens me that you continue to teach theology at CTS. I can just hear your lecture demonizing Hillary Clinton in accordance with the biblical story of Esther. That's an outrage I'll not soon forget.

Reston75, if the Bible is "God's word", then He is a bloodthirsty and demented child killer. In Deuteronomy 21:18-21, "He" counsels parents of stubborn and misbehaving kids to drag them to the village square and have the townspeople stone them to death.

Why do Christians insist on putting this book forth as divinely written, and then brush aside the passages that make "God" look like a psychopathic maniac? If you're going to apologize for him, as in "God was just having a testy day when he wrote the Old Testament", then you're no better off than the women who dismiss the actions of their violent partners with one excuse after another.

I post about this passage of the "Bible" (and others like it) time and again on this forum, and no one ever has the honesty to address it. Do you deny that this passage (and others like it) are in that Bronze Age artifact that you hold up as Holy?

An important column. Islam gets a well-deserved bad rap when it comes to justifying subjugation of women, but Christianity is only a couple of decades ahead of them, in the long march of history. As recently as last year, we had GOP candidate (and former pastor) Mike Huckabee "affirming" that women should be subordinate/submissive to their husbands.

The only difference between fundamentalist Christianity and Islam is that one is preached in Arabic and Pashtun in middle eastern dress while the other is preached in English in western dress. Only FauxNews viewers and other shallow-minded people are impressed with that as a real distinction.

The real message here is that religion is a social disease. I wish modern society could finally get its collective mind around that, so we could move on to a more enlightened existence.

If I were to sit by and believe that men don’t beat women I would be totally naïve, but to assume that these men are Christians I would also be wrong. These are not men who follow Christ. These men follow the devil and these men are not redeemed by the Spirit of God. The bible does teach authority that we are all under kings’ governors and institutions. Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church cleansing her with the washing of the word as it is written in Ephesians 5:22-33. So it doesn’t mean that I should leave the church off the hook. Once an allegation comes into the church office it is up to the pastoral staff to embrace the husband and wives lovingly work though this issue as long as they or he is welling. It even might mean the wife my need to be separated from the husband for a time. He must repent in order for anything to be of any help.

As usual, Thistlewaite has cherry-picked Ephesians. This seems to be a common habit with her. She picks one line out of a much longer passage. If she finishes reading the message, she will note that Paul goes on a pretty significant tongue-lashing of the men - where he calls on them to love their wives as Christ loved them. Men are called to make the ultimate sacrifice for their wives if needed. Wives may be called to submit to their husbands, but their husbands are called to die for their wives if need be. Hardly an endorsement of domestic violence.

The extent to which domestic or dating violence is initiated by men or women is very much a matter of dispute (see Neil Munro's April, 2008 article in the National Journal). I hope she's amenable to taking a look at the ample evidence pointing toward a less dogmatic view of the problem.

For being a professor of theology, Thistlewaite has a shockingly poor reading of the New Testament, and an even more shockingly poor sense of how to assemble evidence in a scholarly fashion. To cherry-pick half of one verse to frame one's argument against Christianity, stripping those words of their grammatical and interpretive context, and then to leap upon a marginal comment by a 19th-century woman, and then to offer a single anecdotal story about a teenage girl and her boyfriend does nothing to support the fundamental assumption of this article: that there is a causal connection between Christianity and domestic violence. Until you can offer any proof that domestic violence happens more often or more seriously, both of which you have suggested, but neither of which you have proven, you don't really have a point.

It's just a hunch, but my guess is that some atheists beat their wives, too. And some agnostics. And some Buddhists. And with all of them, there are likely wives who, for varying reasons, may stay in the relationship too long. And in each case, maybe that violence has no direct connection to the people's religious beliefs.

And misrepresenting the teachings of mainstream and conservative Protestants doesn't help your case either. In every church I've encountered, the teaching is of mutual submission, not of unilateral submission.

How did you manage to get tenure at a respected university by writing so sloppily? I don't mean this question as a personal attack, but as a very serious inquiry into academic standards. True, this is not a peer-reviewed publication, but the article is at least published and went through some kind of editorial process, didn't it? The broad ideological assumptions, scanty evidence, and leaps in logic simply do not recommend well your academic training and qualifications.

Contemporary Islam from the inside:

From Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel".

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.

four excerpts:

p. 47 paperback issue:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

p.68:

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."

p.309

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."

p. 347

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

Yonkers, New York
01 March 2009

Paul's diktat to the Ephesians that "Wives should submit to their husbands in everything," has indeed led routinely to husbands doing violence to their wives.

The author of this essay, Suan Brooks Thistlethewatte, and countless other enlightened women--and men, mind you!--find serious fault with this passage in the Christian bible.

And they have a very good reason to do so. Under a purely secular morality, such violence would be unthinkable and reprehensible, if not criminal.

But under Christian morality, such violence visited upon wives is easily tolerated because many husbands have no problem interpreting the phrase "in all things" in Paul's diktat to include doing violence to their wives.

The Christian bible has been sold to the flock as "the word of God"--the Christian god, that is.

But is the Christian god that insensitive, inconsiderate and even cruel to women, that he should allow their husbands to beat them up black and blue? Is the Christian god not supposed to be loving, gentle, sensitive, considerate, and forgiving?

He ought to be. But the trouble is that the Christian bible is not--repeat not-the Word of God. It is the word of some macho men long ago who were crafty, cunning, manipulative and thus foisted religion on humanity with the sinister purpose of using it as a tool to control, dominate and exploit humanity.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

s diktat

Those who have responded to Susan's column that suggest that she does not know there are additional versus are incorrect. I am certain that Susan knows about the additional verses. However, it is the fundamentalist/conservative religious segment that often lift, out of context, a single verse to support their very limited point of view. These people find that too much information is a hindrance to their orthodoxy. Just witness the limited, biased, and "do not let the facts get in the way" CPAC event in DC the past few days. (Rush Limbaugh had at least one misstatement or misperception per every two sentences that he uttered.) As I said before, such fundamentalism and right-wing righteousness is scary. It threatens our rights as normal citizens. Our forefathers struggled with religious issues and indeed fell on the side of separation of church and state as the only way to preserve religious freedom.

Watch the religious right go into a frenzy when the religious loophole is closed in the tax code: the ability to itemize charitable giving to religious entities. The government through its tax code has been very generous to religious organizations. I see no problem with this loophole being closed. My God loves a cheerful giver because I choose to give, not because I get a tax deduction.

Very insightful commentary. My wife and I discussed this topic today in context with some comments that the preacher made in the sermon today about divorce according to the Bible. Physical abuse is not the only abuse in such households. Emotional or psychological abuse is as bad. The problem with the Ephesians 5 verse that is often quoted is that there is a continuation in that chapter. The overempahsis on "submission" ignores the broader context of the husband-wife relationship that is outlined starting in Genesis.

I hasten to add that it is not only the husband-wife relationship that fundamental and conservative Christians get wrong. This submission principle carries over to boss-employee relationships. There is a strong economic component. Some of the relgious right alignment with "conservative" Republican politics is not by coincidence. Abortion, gay rights, and other hot button issues deflect the attention from what these people really believe about society. A close study of religious fanaticism and fundamentalism should scare anyone who values his/her freedom to worship as he/she pleases and to enjoy the abundance of opportunities that our Constitution provides for us citizens.

The problem, of course, is not faith in God but worship of the BIble as the infallible authority that is used to justify anything. We want that tract of land that someone else is living on? Hey, God reserved it for Us, so it's okay to invade Them and kick them out. Uppity women not fawning over you the way the women in your fantasies do? Beat them into submission, in a godly way of course.

These things happen because no one has real faith in God. All the major religions are about faith in their sacred scriptures. They are all illustrative of the danger of bibliolatry--a convenient way to justify whatever you want and say that it is God's command. Is there no one else who believes in God but recognizes that all sacred scriptures are just compendiums of human writings--sometimes inspired, sometimes hateful, sometimes just garbled and incomprehensible?

I am a missionary in Tijuana working with a domestic violence shelter. I am a Christian and believe in the teachings of the Bible. But I also can see very clearly that it is so often used, out of context, I would say, to justify violence against women and others.

It seems to me that the people who are most fundamental in their beliefs from within any religion are the ones who are most prone to use it to justify themselves in their own interpretations ands to create rigid hierarchies of power and control. The closer we personally believe that we are to understanding "TRUTH" the more we allow ourselves to impose our superior position and our beliefs on others.

Domestic Violence and violence in general is not necessarily a Muslim or a Christian problem, it is a worldwide problem wherever we allow ourselves to belief that we are superior to another and that God has ordained us to exercise control.

In my experience, it is always the greatest problem where we hold the greatest certatinty of our own beliefs.

Is the criticism here that observant Christians are really more likely to abuse their spouses, or that observant Christians are more likely to stay in bad marriages?

Correlations is not causation (not that Thistelthwaite could be bothered to show either), except to those looking for a convenient stick to beat a straw man.

It's funny that the two big abuse stories were about a secular man beating up a secular woman (Rihanna) and a Muslim man beheading his wife, but Thistlethwaite's big upset is with St. Paul and those who take him seriously.

I'm not even religious, but this is silly. Let's pretend that scripturally Christianity and Islam are equally misogynistic (they aren't). Let's pretend that the enlightenment never happened. Let's pretend that in this day and age Islamic and Western countries had similar legal protections for women, and similar incidence of spousal abuse. Then maybe you would have a point.

Religions of all kinds have, quite simply, outlived their usefulness. Come to think of it, they never were useful other than to bring people together to mount Crusades, Inquisitions and Reformations.
This is the 21st Century, folks! Scientific advancement has shown quite convincingly that their are no ghosts, witches, gods or ethereal beings of any sort.
For those who want to continue to live a fairy tale in fantasy land, do so in your own homes and places of oral mumbo-jumbo. Don't force your Biblical or Koranic crap on the rest of us--even the cherry-picked stuff.
Why is this so hard to understand, Mr. & Mrs. Religious? Why can't you just keep it to yourselves, especially in light of the fact that multitudes of people are still dying each day as a result of god-driven commands?
And please don't try to deny that this is the case . . . it makes you look even more pathetic than you already are.

Spousal abuse and violence toward women occur in all societies, regardless of religion. It is a cultural phenomenon, not religious. Religion is used to justify it, and then pointed at as the cause. You will notice that it is always "interpretations" of religious writings that justify these acts and it is never plainly written out. The culture interprets the religion and sshapes it to fit what they already do. If Jesus or Muhammed meant for women to be equal in all things to men, their injunctions were doomed by the cultures that heard them. It's ridiculous to blame religion for the abuse, it's the people who interpret it who are to blame.

One of the worst things about husbands/boyfriends who beat their partners is what their children learn and how that affects their whole lives (incl. future mates) Also, our young daughters have boyfriends who beat them...so obviously, we haven't been educating our daughters. Statistics show that when some men lose their jobs (manliness) they drink more and beat their wives/girlfriends, mothers of their babies...more often.

I agree that religion perpetuates violence against woman. The fact that in most denominations women are not allowed to participate in the same roles as priests, teaches young boys and men that is it OK to ignore women's opinions and that they have a secondary role and position. This is also evident in the Catholic Church by banning priests to marry. How can these priests/ministers understand reality when they do not live the problems that women and couples live. Women by nature are more compassionate than men and when you suppress 50% of the population like that, there are societal problems. I have stopped attending church because I felt so disrespected and unappreciated.

Professor,

Your whole sermon here is based on a verse that is taken out of context and you are commiting plagarism.

Colossians 3:18
"Wives, submit to your husbands" and you omit "as is fitting in the Lord".

The next verse you omit places a responsibility on husbands saying...
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."

By omitting these key verses, you pervert God's message. The Bible does not condone wife battering. "do not be harsh with them" is a clear message.

"Iron My Shirt!" and fifty years of Barbie fit Christianity. Subtle dismissal of women in churches prevails--men's voices louder, more credible by the lights of many Christian groups--never mind history of women not being allowed to learn to read, write, vote, own property, speak up. The real reason women are not allowed in Catholic priesthood is not by divine wish--it is so obviously the acceptance and written history of power of the penis which determines that. And how does that relate to battering? Mental battering? Offer it up? Denigrating remarks, public embarrassment? Belittling? Just? Or Just The Way It Is?
I pay attention to religion, no longer attend to it. In my opinion, acceptance of battering, demeaning, verbal and physical abuse and objectifying has been set in place by men of religion who continue to be dominant in its practice and acceptance.

I google searched, "Domestic violence against women in the West".
It gives data country by country. Here is an excerpt of Englnad only:

1 in 4 women may experience violence in their relationships with men (Women's Aid Federation [England] report, 1992)

· Severe, repeated and systematic violence occurs in at least 5 of every hundred marriages in Britain;
Between 40 and 45% of murdered women are killed by their male partners;
Between 1 of every 2 women are murdered by their male partners every week;
more than 25% of all violent crime reported to the police is domestic violence of men against women, making it the second most common violent crime; (Domestic Violence - Action for Change, G. Hague & E. Malos, 1993)

· 100,000 women per year seek treatment in London for violent injuries received in the home (Punching Judy, BBC1 TV programme, 1989)

Niko-

You are wasting your time with the TROLL CCNL.

He believes every word that the wacko liberal fringe Jesus Seminar people have to say. They attack the scriptures from the assumption in the beg. that the miracles cannot be true, and that the scriptures are suspect. Imagine having the ego to "decide" what were Jesus' actual sayings and what were not.

CCNL and some of the others here don't think that "educated", and "thinking" and evangelical Christians can be mouthed in the same sentence, and that is their bigotry.

Domestic abuse--and child abuse--are serious problems in the more conservative evangelical churches. I left my church after more than 20 years because I could no longer stomach systematic degradation of women--even as they say they are embracing "True Womanhood" and "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood". This systematic pattern of abuse is found in the midst of all the smiling faces: pastors telling wives again and again to submit to their husbands--that even if the husbands are totally wrong, God will honor their submission--even in cases of prolonged physical, emotional, and/or verbal abuse.

I have found tremendous comfort in two websites that specifically deal with my former "family of churches" Sovereign
Grace Ministries--whose "mothership" is right here in Gaithersburg, Maryland - Covenant Life Church:

www.sgmsurvivors.com
www.sgmrefuge.com

as well as the voice for evangelical egalitarianism
www.cbeinternational.org

After reading through the comments that have already been posted, I'm left wondering whether 90% of the people even read this article or its companion piece. The internet is teeming with the half-cocked musings of the ill-informed idiot fringe; it would be nice if the Washington Post comments section could be an oasis.

I have already done.

Brutality against female is existing anywhere and is more in the west rather than in any other place. Do Not BLAME Islam. Muslims do not blame cristianity for all for practices of individuals and groups. We know very well that prostitution, alkahole drinking, homosexuality, drug taking, raping, gays, lisbianity are not religious teaching and nothing but practices by humans. SO why are you blaming Islam if someone headed his wife. Does Islam teach so? Does cristianity say so. Go to the real teachings of Jesus ( Peace be upon him) We do not blame Religions for practices of its followers.

If Ms. Thistlewaite is going to quote from Paul in the book of Ephesians she should also include what Paul writes about how a husband is supposed to treat his wife:

Colossians 3:19
And you husbands must love your wives and never treat them harshly.
Ephesians 5:25
And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her.

From 1 Peter 3:7
In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat her with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. If you don't treat her as you should, your prayers will not be heard.

I have attended many churches over the years, none of which would ever condone spousal abuse. To somehow imply that Christianity condones or even leads to spousal abuse is truly misleading and an injustice to all the good work churches do to help abused women.

Cross-posting would take up space unnecessarily. I have posted a note to the other posting on this topic (on violence against women in Islam being un-Islamic)

If the tradition of abusing women is seen as a religious right of men, then what is the use of religion to women? Long before Paul's statements is the simple first movement of humanity (So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27) Women, equally precious to God, cannot be reduced in status by human tradition, or interpretation of Holy Books. To inflict purposely abuse on anything or anyone precious to God is to dishonor God in the most direct way. The use of holy writings to justify such behaviors gives clear evidence that the reader neither understands the holy writings nor understands the nature of God.

As for the "Poor Laddie, Paul," either he is a true follower and reflector of the nature of God to us, and thus is grossly misinterpreted, or he is a bad example of what it is to be God's follower. I, for one, think that he, Paul, did not intend for his reflections to be used to abuse, kill and disfigure women. He is the same writer who remains us that in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free (Galatians 3:28) an affirmation of Genesis 1:27.

It is easy to say "wait until these men stand before God Almighty, they will be in for a shock when they discover that abusing women was not God's way." But what is intended is for us to reflect God's nature and God's intent to hold all people (female and male) as precious. We must stand up against abuse in the name of religion, and stand up against all those who would dishonor God by abusing, disfiguring and killing. We are reminded that "the Poor Laddie, Paul" wrote in Romans 12:19 "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" But vengeance being God's does not mean that we are required to sit by and allow abuse on women. Now is the time to put such unholy acts out of our society, for God's sake and for ours.

Last month a Christian man in California shot and killed his wife and all of his children in the house. The reason given was the loss of job.This act should not be connected to the Christian religion.

Domestic voilence can happen in any society. Those societies where learning, education and awareness of social issues are neglected have the highest rate of such killings. Things like honor killings are prevalent in people with little or no education. The social environment and culture around that place do play the role but not the religion.Rather many such persons are non-religious. The drug abusers and alcholics are mostly non-religious and domestic voilence in prevalent in such homes.
No religion allows beheading a wife, including Islam.

You forgot the other side, Paul also tells men to "love your as you love your own body", and as "Christ loved the church". Paul's submission it voluntary honoring and obeying in the context of love. Paul didn't give the husband the right to exploit or abuse his wife.

Quote: 'How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won't happen again.'"

Ah, but no, he would not say that. Never. He knew a little more about the human mind. He stopped a legal stoning of an adultrous wife - you think he'd accept domestic violence?

But the real point is that violence does not come from religion, it comes from men. And they use religion as an excuse - which is easy, since men constructed the three now dominant religions and modeled God after themselves, or their warlord. And voila - you have to follow God, and it just so happens that God wants women to be submissive to the men of their family!

Religious men should be ashamed of themselves.

wow! you're 2000 years behind! do you know what you are writing about? you must be out of your mind to write this article, or you are just plain dumb.

Quoting Bible Verses does not constitute thinking. It's just parroting. "get over it" indeed.

kjohnson3:

"Yes, indeed. There used to be a slogan in the Mormon church that went something like this:

When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has already been done."

And Rush Limbaugh says that we don't have to read the newspaper. He reads it for us. My father, ditto head that he was, liked it that way. There are folks who want to be told what is right and wrong by some external authority. I guess the old saying goes "There's a sucker born every minute"

"It seems to me that of all the gripes that Conservative Christians have with 'everybody else,' their main gripe is with people who use their brains to think for themselves."

Yes, indeed. There used to be a slogan in the Mormon church that went something like this:

When the Prophet has spoken, the thinking has already been done.

Baddab, yeah, looks like male domination is at the root of human civilization. Maybe the fact of being physically stronger was a factor of domination in prehistoric times and has carried on from then. It makes sense and it may have been only natural at the beginning of human society.
But eventually, I think men found a way to continue this domination even though they knew that women were equal. Hard to say at what point in time though. It’s always a lot easier to just dismiss something instead of providing an adequate reaction. Like a “keeping things simple at all costs” attitude.
Things should only get better by treating women equally.

ALL major religions preach the submission of women. Islam is notorious (though in all fairness, abuses such as "honor killings" are not in fact sanctioned by the Koran, but are instead traditions in some cultures where Islam is also the dominant religion). Christianity is also notorious - some of us older folks will remember the well-known evangelical and anti-gay activist whose career ended when she revealed that not only was she a battered wife, but her church had counseled her to remain with her abusive husband and failed to counsel him to stop beating her. Orthodox Buddhism teaches that women cannot achieve enlightenment; they must live lives of perfect virtue in order to be reborn as men before they can be saved. Jewish law also imposes restrictions on women and denies them equal participation with men in the religious life of the community. Even the traditional faiths of most tribal cultures impose a litany of taboos on women, and in many cultures an important part of manhood initiation is revealing to the initiate boys the deception behind the taboos - it's almost as though male domination of women is at the root, not only of religion but of all of human civilization!

http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/02/10/8-year-old-married-off-to-47-year-old-man/

What more is there to say?

And a Muslim male with four wives, is he not guilty of raping the last three i.e. polygamy is simply legalized rape??? spousal abuse??

Okay, CCNL, remember to hold that thought and recite it to that mythical Jesus when you cross over to the other side. And be sure to share your favorite line, "...pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie...." I'm sure that He'll let you know if He finds it humorous.

Nikos,

Because of you I might start believing in CCNL’s 3 Bs.

You reply to Daniel stating “the reason is as follows”. So? Where is it? You are just copying sentences from the translated copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy... of an old book. Who do you think wrote the original old book? What “authenticity” do you think it has?

Why do you think you know how it is with god? How do you know what god said and thinks and if he takes no pleasure in destruction, etc, etc?

So, are you suggesting that even though you think there is a god, man is left to his own devices?
So why don’t you just act as if there isn’t one and serve yourself, not him?

It’s obvious that if there is one, he is absolutely not interested in human affairs.

nikosd99,

Hmmm, citing the words of mythical Joshua is like citing the words of the mythical Greek underlings!!!

Considering your commentaries, you definitely are suffering from the Three B Syndrome aka being Bred, Born and Brainwashed in the sometimes mythical, sometimes fictional and always embellished bible. Tis time to enter the 21st Century where bible thumping is no longer valid!!!

Lion Den David said, "If people question the Bible, the Koran, or any other written source, perhaps it is not the act of questioning that is at fault, but perhaps the object of questioning has something lacking, has not covered all the areas of interest, or is just plain not clear."

No, the real reason is as follows.

1 Corinthians 2:13,14 (KJV) "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So, who is the natural man? Anyone who has not been born again.

Here are excerpts from John 3. (Read the whole chapter) ~ "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

As far as wickedness is concerned, it is covered in the following scripture.

Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

In conclusion, all the violence, including wife beating, done in the name of "religion" comes from those who, either individually or collectively as a religious organization, have no clue as to the intentions of God's heart.

If one insists on citing some of the instances in the Bible when God called for the destruction of a people or a nation, it must be understood that, as a good surgeon hates to have to cut away a limb or organ because of cancer or a disease, it must be done to save the body. So it is with God. He takes no pleasure in destruction, but man left to his own devices will surely destroy the entire world.

It seems to me that of all the gripes that Conservative Christians have with "everybody else," their main gripe is with people who use their brains to think for themselves.

And a "liberal" seems to be one of these people who uses his brain and thinks for himself.

People are not evil, wicked, or bad simply because the mental mechanisms of their braisn are active, and actually "thinking" as they were designed and intended to. If people question the Bible, the Koran, or any other written source, perhaps it is not the act of questioning that is at fault, but perhaps the object of questioning has something lacking, has not covered all the areas of interest, or is just plain not clear.

I am not sure that there is any cure for thoughtfulness and awareness and thinking; it is just the way people are made.

To CCNL

"....And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)

If you, CCNL, want to waste your time trying to disprove the bible, and/or cast doubt on it's authenticity by following the teachings of those so-called experts, ie; theologians, philosophers, biblical historians, agnostics, etc.,etc.,ad nauseam, then be my guest and choose ye whom you will serve.

As for me, in the words of that great hero, Joshua, "....We will serve the LORD."

"So, let's back up to that fateful day in the garden. This is what the Lord said to Eve: "...I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16

Give us a break, Genesis was thrown on the myth pile years ago i.e. there was no Adam and Eve, no magical garden, no talking snake and no human time line beginning 6,000 years ago somewhere in the Mideast. www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

(As per DNA studies, the human time line started some 60,000+ years ago somewhere in middle Africa. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ )

nikosd99,

A few updates.

1. The Epistle to Timothy was not written by Paul but by a pseudo Paul.

ref. In Search of Paul by Professors JD Crossan (On Faith panelist) and Jonathan Reed.

An Introduction to the New Testament by Father Raymond Brown.

excerpts:

p. 654, 80-90% of the critical scholars believe the letter was written by a pseudo Paul toward the end of the first century, early second century.

"Authenticity - Probably written by a disciple of Paul or a sympathetic commentator on the Pauline heritage several decades after the apostle's death.

p. 639 ditto for Titus

2. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul:

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies"/angels in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). "

Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mo's scribes simply enhanced Paul's (and the pseudo Pauls') thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!!

Susan Thistlethwaite just gushed over President Obama's reference, during his inaugural speech, to the Pauline theme of 1 Corinthians 13 in that the time has come to grow up and to put away childish things.

Now, however, she's not too pleased with Paul's admonition to wives to submit to their husband's authority. This is a typical reaction by those who like to pick and choose Scripture for their own personal reasons. She also blames this particular teaching for the abuse and beatings that wives suffer. Sadly, Thistlethwaite does not understand that the Bible does not teach, nor condone violence in the home. The bible makes it clear that the husband is to love his wife and to treat her with respect.

The point is that there can only be one captain of a ship; only one president of a nation; and only one CEO of a company. That doesn't mean that a wife can't express her views and thoughts, but the final decision is the husband's. That is God's role for the husband.

Why are women to be in subjection? Well, the answer is given in the Bible: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Timothy 2:11-14

So, let's back up to that fateful day in the garden. This is what the Lord said to Eve: "...I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16

Simple enough. So, women, get over it. If you have an abusive husband, leave and remain single in hopes that he will get counseling and changes his ways. If he doesn't and starts seeing other women and has an adulterous relationship, then you are free to divorce and remarry. (Read 1 Corinthians 7)

James,

You noted: "And, to be quite fair and specific, it was the Prophet Muhammed who stopped Arabic men from burying their daughters in the sands. He bestowed upon girls and women a much higher value. This can be easily verified."

We await your verification.

In the meantime:

Almost 500 million Muslim women save a few lucky ones like PM Benazir Bhutto, who sadly was assassinated by a follower of the koran, live under the boots of Ismalic males based on the "word" of one "pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie named Gabriel. Again, one must scream, "THE SIGNIFICANT STUPIDITY OF IT ALL!!!!"

To withouthavingseen:

Biblical scholarship is always commendable. Yet I believe that Dr. Thistlethwaite's focus, as well as that of other's worldwide, is upon how religion actually contributed to the subjagation of women. Nothing else.

None can re-do past deeds. Nor can anyone travel back in time in order to fully understand the nature and application of pulpit theology, no matter which religion is targeted. Yet the application of perceived religious doctrines resulted in witch hunts in America. Everywhere, women were seen as objects for birthing and cooking, in many places not much more than a farm animal. I'm sure you will concur.

This old-age attitude towards women is now being held against a greater light, one illuminating not only basic human rights but a greater knowledge of what a human being is. That light is a greatly expanded human mind, which includes the spirit.

Due to an inability to understand, these higher levels of truths were never revealed in traditional, age-old Holy Books. But a new day, a new age has come. As evidence, if we were meant to literally rely upon their teachings in today's world, then slavery should be re-instated. For Jesus Himself didn't condemn it.

And, to be quite fair and specific, it was the Prophet Muhammed who stopped Arabic men from burying their daughters in the sands. He bestowed upon girls and women a much higher value. This can be easily verified. It was Islam that created universities, consolidated human knowledge, and even drew the Christian realm out of the Dark Ages. But that original spirit has also faded.

Yet, something else has happened to humanity. Obviously, we are living in a new age, one in which more expansive paradyms of thought are required of each of us. Granted, their efficacy must still be based upon eternal truths given in the Holy Books. But their understanding must conform to a new human reality. Because we're now exploring the heveans. The earth is slowly becoming one country. Women are acquiring their rightful place of equality with men, etc. Thus our understanding of biblical eternal truths, for example, cannot be the same as that of thousands of years ago when the text was written.

In retrospect, the people to whom the Gospels were given were children, comparatively. Few traveled more than 50 miles beyond their birthplace; they had no concept of a world beyond their own cultures. Yet, if even a child of today traveled back to that era, no matter where she went, she would either be killed as a devil, due to her greater knowledge of reality (which she now takes for granted) or worshiped as a little goddess.

It's clear that humanity has evolved, and will continue to do so. It has already attained a common perspective that's far beyond previous understandings of the universe, women and human reality, as well as the Reality of God. This can only infer that there's more good to come. We must open our eyes.

Almost 500 million Muslim women save a few lucky ones like PM Benazir Bhutto, who sadly was assassinated by a follower of the koran, live under the boots of Ismalic males based on the "word" of one "pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie named Gabriel. Again, one must scream, "THE SIGNIFICANT STUPIDITY OF IT ALL!!!!"

I don't know why I am bothering to write, given that you have not published my last two posts on your board - though neither included anything remotely offensive. But here goes nothing...

Dr. Brooks Thistlethwaite, you have asserted that there is a connection between the Pauline doctrine of marriage and the abuse of wives. You have given an anecdote about some unnamed idiotic teenagers (are these people, unmarried themselves, even properly speaking representatives of St Paul's doctrine on marriage?). But you hvae not shown, either through data or logic, the connection. You seem just to take it as obvious that St Paul's teaching leads to the abuse of wives.

Have you read the full pericopes involved in St Paul's letters? Did you notice the part where St Paul writes that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, laying down his body for her, sacrificing to serve her? That attitude toward one's wife hardly seems compatible with wife battering, does it? The two parts of the doctrine - wives attitudes toward their husbands, and husbands toward their wives - balance each other. If the second half of the doctrine is ignored, that throws everything off kilter, naturally. The solution isn't necessarily to throw the other half out, though, is it? Because some Christians ignore half of the scripture's teaching, our pastors are to tell us to throw out the other half? Wow.

The Protestant churches were supposedly founded on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura - "Scripture Alone." But if you throw out doctrines you don't like because you don't understand them or haven't even read them entirely, what will you have left? Sola nada? Lol. Seriously, though, that is a very, very sad state for a Christian denomination to sink to - to have thrown out the earliest witnesses to Christ and his teaching, in order to imagine their own versions that they like better.

How can such a Christianity challenge culture at all, Dr. Brooks Thistlethwaite?

Ryan Haber
Kensington, Maryland

Ed:

Concerning the problem of lower birthrates linked to liberation of women, assuming there is a strong link, it might come at a right time. The load capacity of the earth is arguably near its peak and higher birth rates just means disaster in the not so distant future .
[Populations follow their own cycle of growth and decline and there are many factors influencing population behaviour. Human populations will rise and fall with time considering present diseases, availability of food, water, etc. Fluctuations are expected in all populations, the notion of an ever-growing population is erroneous.
When the load capacity of a particular environment is exceeded, populations typically will start to decrease. In our case, we should try to control it before we suffer the deep consequences of uncontrolled growth.
You mention evolution, but evolution is a different concept and works at a different scale. Very briefly, it’s related to genetic changes in organisms, through generations, by reproduction, variation and selection.]

Going back to your counterpoint, liberation of women might help us out in the near future if there is such a relation between women liberation & extremely low birth rates.

My apologies for any sidetrack of Ms. Thistlewaite's comments. I entirely concur. I think women's liberation is the crowning achievement of our age and that sexual subjugation and violence are frequent companions. That said, I am often troubled by the receivers of the legacy of the western liberal legacy's refusal to pay the gift of life forward.

Frankly, I'm astounded over how the reading of a timely, highly concise, and intelligent article on the abuse of women could degenerate into a discussion over birth rates.

This is considerable proof that human society remains heavily influenced by centuries of psychological conditioning concerning the inferiority of women. At least to me, a male striving to unlearn such notions.

"I don't see a problem. Even if what you say is true.So what if it leads to lower birth rates? Doesn't that mean that the children that are born will likely have a higher standard of living? Doesn't that mean that population growth will slow to a more sustainable level, enabling all that are born will have a better shot at survival?"

________________________________________

The above are reasonably true statements.Putting aside the potential for armed conflict between cultures, the rub is where the young hands will come from to run society and care for the elderly if birth rates fall way below replacement levels, which they have done in most of the developed world. If you import hands from the areas of high reproduction, you import a very different worldview and values, some more resistant to change than others.

I don't have a hard POV on this question. I just notice the conflict and wonder about the resolution.

In Memory of Aasiya Hassan--

O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, illiterate and hallucinating,
O Islam, Islam, violent Islam,
Moha greed and lustful, womanizing,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Moha, warmongering and hateful,
Was he too,

O Islam, O Islam, violent Islam,
Sunnis of hate, Shiites of late,
Even Pretty Wingie Thingies cannot
Save us from O Islam's hate.

Save us from these Islamic FEMs,
Flaws, Errors, Muck and Stench,
They ooze from the rocks of earth,
Like worms of death and wrench.

Born, Bred, and Brainwashed too,
Whatever, whatever to do?
Truth, Truth, History and Truth,
Let it Ring True, Freedom, Freedom
Free at Last and much left to do!!!

"Liberation of women leads to extremely low birth rates. This fact puts what we view as proper cultural evolution in direct conflict with biological evolution.
How that conflict will be resolved is uncertain."

I don't see a problem. Even if what you say is true.So what if it leads to lower birth rates? Doesn't that mean that the children that are born will likely have a higher standard of living? Doesn't that mean that population growth will slow to a more sustainable level, enabling all that are born will have a better shot at survival?

"In an article Time Magazine did when Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ was first released, I noted the direct connection between an overemphasis on suffering as 'saving' people..."

Yes, this point of view was also espoused by Mother Teresa. While much of the developed world thought that she and her band of sisters were easing the pain of the dying in Calcutta, in actuality she was counseling these poor, suffering people to embrace their pain and agony. She told them that it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ." And another: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!"

While agreeing with Ms. Thistlewaite on point, that subordination of women theologically sets up a climate for violence against them, I would like to bring up a counterpoint that is often missed.

Liberation of women leads to extremely low birth rates. This fact puts what we view as proper cultural evolution in direct conflict with biological evolution.

How that conflict will be resolved is uncertain.

Susan,
One could choose to be offended by Psyc's comments, but I hope your message gets across to any religious leader who would have participated in the kind of misapplication of supposedly religious teachings if they counseled women in the ways you noted. There ought to be a hue and cry that cannot be mistaken, ending such absolutely wrong counsel and advice. Thanks for addressing this issue within the context of your personal experience. Those things need to be said over and over to leaders and followers within all religious traditions.

Dear Rev. Brooks-Thistlewaite

Thank you for a well-written, thoughtful response to the question. I especially liked your conclusion where you said that domestic abuse is sin, pure and simple. This is not a Christian, Muslim, or agnostic problem. Abuse is abuse, wherever it happens, and it is wrong.

Should have read "are other religions" that provide..

With some effort, I can suppose that psycmeistr opposes options battering, perhaps excepting when the victim is Muslim.

Nancyberg,you supposed inaccurately, and it would appear that you need to put forth a bit more effort to read and comprehend sarcasm when it is written; especially when the /sarc symbol is utilized.

I abhor violence and oppression against women in all its forms; I also oppose singling out a particular religion as a singular example; especially when there is another religions that provide infinitely more examples.

It is for this reason that I believe that there was an ulterior motive behind Miss Brooks-Thistlewaite's writing of this article. I believe the prime motivation was not necessarily violence against and subjugation of women as much as it was an opportunistic attempt to bash Christianity.

Oh, dear. I thought I'd simply add an "Amen," and then I run into this bizarre comment from psycmeistr. With some effort, I can suppose that psycmeistr opposes options battering, perhaps excepting when the victim is Muslim.
Probably any attack on any religion in particular ought to be construed as an attack on all religions, just as every battered victim from bothersome crying baby to seceding gang member to uppity wife to needy elder is all too painfully the same.

Dear Miss Brooks-Thistlewaite.

While we're speaking of respect for women, why not also turn your attention toward that wonderful religion of peace, Islam. You know, the one relationship where women are forced to dress in burkkas, sometimes not even being allowed to show their eyes. The one where women as a course of regular practice are beaten, just to keep them in line? You know, the one whose practitioner (who had a TV show that extolled the virtues of diversity) recently beheaded his wife-- in the United States (Oh--I'm sure she deserved it (/sarc). I know, you'll say, "Well, that's just a few on the fringe." Well, if you can generalize Christianity by the extreme, then you'll indulge me as I generalize Islam by its extremes as well.

As you've certainly taken such a tact in this mindless article, I'm sure you won't begrudge my prerogative to take similar liberties in my response.

Good day.