Article about domestic violence in the name of God in Australia

[Joyleaf]

"In the past three years, alarm bells have begun to ring about the role religion may play in fostering, or concealing abuse.

There have been two substantial inquiries into domestic violence in Australia in recent years. Both have identified religion as a significant, under-reported problem."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028?WT

IMO very interesting article about how churches fail abused women and how toxic and dangerous the doctrine of "male headship" is.

 

 

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

A good article, @Joyleaf. I liked this illustration:

I imagine that's what a lot of fundies see when they read a Bible; one or two verses that "support" their twisted views.

This quote also reminded me of Lori Alexander and some of the others we discuss here.

Quote

For many women who sought help from a faith leader, the commission reported, "the response was inadequate … some faith leaders were uninformed and ill-equipped to respond to such disclosures, 'often the advice given wasn't helpful because the faith leader didn't know what kind of advice to give'."

It's interesting to see the important issue of domestic violence and its interaction with religion being addressed in different countries.

[sawasdee]

Quote

And Simon Smart, the Executive Director of the Centre for Public Christianity points to "what [Croatian theologian] Miroslav Volf describes as the difference between 'thin' and 'thick' religion — where thin religion is stripped of its moral content and used as a weapon for goals completely unrelated to the faith."

(Also from the linked article above)

I think many of those we follow here - Lori Alexander, TAM - are proponents of 'thin' religion.

I like this definition very much as a shorthand for the way some pervert christian belief to their own purposes.

[Khan]

It almost brings me to tears when I read such stories as the ones in the linked article.  "God doesn't like divorce." Apparently, God would prefer a woman dead than a woman divorced. 

That image speak volumes @WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?, you're right.   

[feministxtian]

interesting article. When my psycho X tossed me and the kids out literally onto the streets, my parish priest told me to go back and be more submissive, control the children better and realize that he was "the head of our home" and no matter how psycho he got, he was to be obeyed unquesitoningly, including taking away my ability to call my parents (Long distance), refusing to allow me to go back to my parents' in VA when my dad was first diagnosed with COPD. That psycho SOB decided that I was faking my last horrid gall bladder attack to manipulate him into "letting" me go to VA. He refused to drive me to the urgent care...I had to drive myself while I was doubled over in pain. 

Fortunately, our church is NOT like that...the sermon last week about being a Christian husband was pretty hard-hitting, basically telling the men in the congregation that you cannot require your wife to submit to your spiritual leadership...you have to EARN it by being the servant-leader of your home. The idea is that the husband is a type of Christ, and as such is expected to literally lay down his life for his wife. He's to love her unconditionally, even if she is being a gold-plated bitch. (can furnish link to video/audio) 

[AlwaysExcited]

4 hours ago, feministxtian said:

. 

Fortunately, our church is NOT like that...the sermon last week about being a Christian husband was pretty hard-hitting, basically telling the men in the congregation that you cannot require your wife to submit to your spiritual leadership...you have to EARN it by being the servant-leader of your home. The idea is that the husband is a type of Christ, and as such is expected to literally lay down his life for his wife. He's to love her unconditionally, even if she is being a gold-plated bitch. (can furnish link to video/audio) 

That sounds terrible too. Nobody should be abused, and nobody should "lay down their life" for anybody.

[feministxtian]

4 hours ago, AlwaysExcited said:

That sounds terrible too. Nobody should be abused, and nobody should "lay down their life" for anybody.

I disagree...I'd damn sure give up my life to protect my children or grandchildren. My husband would give up his life to protect me. 

[AlwaysExcited]

@feministxtian I don't think it was meant exactly like *that*. It sounded like some guys I know who put up with their clearly emotionally abusive wives and hope that if they love them more or sacrifice more, or earn more, or whatever said wives will treat them like actual human beings. 
My apologies if I misunderstood. 

[feministxtian]

The abusive shit is a two way street. If he's abusive, time to go. If she's abusive, time to go. There has to be a mutual love and respect there to start. The passage that starts "husband love your wives..." was culturally influenced by the way marriage was at the time. In Mosaic law, the husband could divorce the wife at any time for any reason. Paul was giving husbands hell and telling them that marriage is not a spur of the moment thing and the minute your wife does something that displeases you, you can kick her to the curb. Marriage is supposed to be a covenant between the husband and wife, more than just a contract. But, in that passage, the "rules" are laid out. The patriarchy idiots get it all wrong...