Anti-Gay pastor Steven Anderson: “Women should STFU in church.”

Pastor Steven Anderson, previously in the headlines for preaching about praying for the death of Obama — which netted him a visit from the Secret Service awhile back — as well as for being virulently anti-gay in his teachings, is once again making headlines by doing the unimaginable: Actually preaching what the Bible says.

You see, The Bible isn’t much on that whole female equality thing and you can find a number of passages that make it clear that man is God’s favorite of the two sexes. Which is why Anderson recently told women they should stop saying “Amen” in reply to his preaching the way the men do. In church, your role as a woman is to sit there quietly and learn and if you have any of your stupid questions or opinions you’d like to share you should save it for when you get home where the man in your life can instruct you on what an idiot you are.

Don’t blame him, it’s says that right in the Bible:

Pastor Anderson first attempted to justify the silencing of women by quoting 1 Timothy 2:11, “[l]et 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.”

He then asked the congregation to flip to 1 Corinthians 14, which says “[l]et your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, as it is commanded to be under obedience as also sayeth the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is shameful for women to speak in the church.”

Now before you ladies get your panties all in a bunch, the good Pastor points out that prior to the service you can talk in Church as much as you want as that’s only to be expected and when it comes time to sing you should definitely participate because you have lovely voices, however…

“But when it’s learning time,” Pastor Anderson said, hammering his lecturn, “it’s silence time.”

Shut the fuck up, bitch. I’m teaching here.

The sad part is, I’m sure Pastor Anderson is far from the only Christian out there who is teaching this. He’s only making headlines with it because he’s already gotten journalist’s attention with that whole please-God-won’t-you-kill-Obama thing.

Yeah, that's really in the Bible too.

Yeah, that’s really in the Bible too.

It’s not like he’s wrong. The Bible does have these passages in it and if you really do believe it is the inspired word of God made manifest then it’s hard to justify ignoring those bits just because you don’t like them. If you’re a woman in a Christian church then your place is not to try and do the teaching, that’s a man’s job, and you certainly shouldn’t interrupt with any silly opinions or questions you have. Save that shit for your husband when you get home so you don’t look quite so stupid in front of everyone else.

“This is why I don’t believe women should say ‘amen’ during the preaching either. Because ‘amen’ means ‘truly’ or ‘verily’ … it basically means ‘that’s true.’ So when I’m preaching and I say something that you agree with and that you believe in, and you say ‘amen,’ you’re saying ‘that’s true.’”

“So here’s the thing,” Pastor Anderson concluded, “when I’m preaching, women should not express their opinion, even if it’s a positive opinion, even if she agrees with me.”

He doesn’t need you to agree with him because he already knows that he’s right.

And, if you’re a woman, don’t even think of disagreeing with him:

“I was preaching one-time, and a woman actually disagreed with me in the middle of preaching. She said I was wrong, and you know, I kind of blew up at her.”

Who the fuck do you think you are to disagree with Pastor Anderson? I don’t see a penis swinging between those legs of yours! Your mouth, like your legs, should be kept shut so you don’t miss out on any of that sweet learnin’ you so obviously need. You can trust him, sweetheart, God said so.

Regardless of whether you accept the Bible as entirely literal or a mixture of history and parable, as a Christian this is the view of women held by the religion you practice. It is inherently misogynistic so you shouldn’t be surprised when misogynists latch onto it so tightly because it tells them they’re right to be that way.

[SEB Guest Post] “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repealed

Hello, this is my first time posting on my father’s blog, but…I thought his readers might enjoy this essay I wrote for my political science class.  So, here you go.

Pic of editoral cartoon.Last month, or rather last year, a very controversial military act was repealed, which banned those who were gay or lesbian from revealing who exactly they were.  While advocates of the repeal viewed this as a success, opponents viewed the repeal as a major hit against military personnel currently fighting overseas.  One side claims that men and women are dying in the name of this country while lying about themselves in order to be able to serve.  The other claims that the repeal will put lives in danger as those who were hidden before come out to their fellows.  Both sides think theirs is the right one, and that the other is in the wrong.  Interwoven throughout the controversial debate are the thoughts that this repeal was pushed through by the democrats to spite the republicans about to enter office.  At the forefront, however, is the issue at hand.  Should gay and lesbian individuals be allowed to openly serve in the military?

This entire debate has to do with the Fourteenth Amendment, most specifically equality.  This has been a civil rights issue for several decades.  In fact, it seemed to first rise up in the 60s when the Civil Rights Movement was occurring.  Chapter Five in my Political Science textbook discusses the varying degrees of equality that have either been gained or are still being fought for by the people of the United States.  In fact, the book even lists gay and lesbian rights in the same chapter as rights for blacks or women, which might lead a reader to think that they are all on the same level.  In fact, they are.  All three movements have to do with equality, but for different reasons.  One has to do with color, another with gender and the third with sexuality.  The linked article deals with the third equality issue.

If the military does not discriminate based on gender or color, why should it then discriminate based on sexuality?  That seems to be what the senators who voted for the repeal are asking.  These men and women are dying for us, regardless of their sexuality.  In fact, these men and women are lying in order to get into the military so that they can fight for a country that discriminates against them.   The book lists a poll done in 2007 that said three quarters of service members had no qualms about serving with gay men or lesbians.  Three quarters, that’s a lot of people.  My Political Science course is about considering and thinking about how the government affects my life.  This topic is something that affects my life in that I will finally no longer read stories about individuals who are dishonorably discharged due to their sexuality.

As a citizen, I view this as another act against discrimination.  In my mind, if discrimination against sexuality is allowed to continue and even encouraged then where is the line drawn?  Discrimination falls across everything and sexuality seems to be just the latest trench war.  For seventeen years individuals had to lie about who they were, as sexuality is a fundamental part of a person’s identity, those same individuals may have died fighting for our rights as Americans while living under a policy that could get them kicked out of their career.

If the military and, through it, the government takes the first steps in this form of equality perhaps businesses will follow.  Currently someone might be fired due to their sexuality.  This is the same as firing a woman due to the fact that she is pregnant. Nowhere on a job application is it asked what the potential-employee’s sexuality is, and why not?  The simple reason is that it’s not important.  The capabilities of the individual applying are what’s important.

This repeal might be the first, historical step in getting closer to “equality for all.”  As a citizen of a country that claims such a thing is important, that’s important to me.  I’d like to see a society where a person, regardless of age, disability, gender, skin color or sexuality is treated as just that – a person.  In the 1960s and 1970s, the Civil Rights Movement forced a lot of massive changes, but then that was a love of different minorities fighting for their rights as citizens of this great country.  The Movement seems to have become quieter, smaller as various groups adjusted to new times.  The one group that seems to have always gotten the short end of the stick are homosexuals; even the government refused to support those of a sexuality different from the ‘norm.’  This repeal is just one act of a much longer play, and it will stop the discharging of perfectly capable individuals.

One of the major problems with the dishonorable discharge was that it is usually reserved for those who have acted criminally.  By using the same discharge for those who were revealed to be homosexual, the government was saying that those people were doing something illegal or completely wrong.  This is not a message our government should want to promote to the people as a whole, especially not when everyone is fighting so very hard for the exact same thing – Equality.  There may be people against the idea of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, but these people have been serving and even dying for us, so why should they not be given the same rights as their fellow military personnel?  They should have the right to be who they are without fearing punishment.

As a citizen, I think this is a step forward toward equality, and believe that to have permanently banned homosexuals from performing in the military would have been a massive step backwards.  For seventeen years, the military has basically promoted the idea that it is acceptable to treat homosexuals like dirt and fire them for a job well done due to the fact that they like others of the same gender.  This mistake has hopefully been changed permanently.  I’d like to see the men and women serving our country able to stand tall without fearing for their military careers.

The Article

The Presentation

Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Crossposted from Degrees of Oddity.

Connecticut Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage.

Good news on the equality front as yet another state has ruled that gays have a right to get married:

Connecticut Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage – AmericaBLOG

The Connecticut Supreme Court just released its decision in the case of Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health.  By a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry:

    We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.

UPDATE: Connecticut’s Republican Governor, Jodi Rell, won’t fight the ruling:

 

    “I disagree with today’s State Supreme Court ruling but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

    I also believe that the historic civil union law that I proudly signed in 2005 is equitable and just. We were the first state to enact such a law through legislative action and not a court mandate.

    The Supreme Court has spoken. I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision – either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”

Considering that Connecticut already had passed a Civil Union law that gave gays the right to everything by the name “marriage” for their contract it’s pretty amazing that the Supreme Court would still rule in this fashion. This makes three states where equality has finally been granted to homosexuals wishing to get married. With any luck this is the start of an ongoing trend.

California joins Massachusetts in allowing homosexuals to marry.

So the California Supreme Court decided to strike down the state’s anti-gay marriage law and already some pundits are claiming it will make gay marriage a campaign issue. Which is fine, I suppose, because it puts John McCain in a rather awkward position:

John McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting whose position on the issue rankles the Republican Party’s conservative base, sought to strike a delicate balance to the Thursday ruling.

He “supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona,” his campaign said in response. “John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.”

McCain rejected the will of the state’s high court even as he tried to maintain his long-held stance that the issue should be left to the states. He suggested that he backs an effort by California’s religious conservatives to put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman on the November ballot.

From where I’m standing the issue of gay marriage is clearly one of the suppression of the rights of a minority based on their sexual orientation and as such Supreme Courts should not only be making decisions on the issue, but should be making the same decisions as the courts in California and Massachusetts. Michigan, unfortunately, is one of the states that put their anti-gay bigotry right into our state constitution, but I hold out hope that we’ll get around to reversing that decision before too long.

Link sent in by an SEB reader who didn’t provide a name, but thanks for sending it along just the same.