Repeal the 19th Amendment

[davsel]

In honor of Ann Barnhardt's new web page format, I thought I'd post this classic.

From: http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about/the-one-about-womens-suffrage/

...
Here’s the deal. Up until women’s suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children. When men voted, they were conscious of the fact that they were voting not just for themselves and their own personal interests, but they were also charged with the responsibility of discerning and making the ultimate decision about what was in the best interests of their entire family. Wow. Isn’t that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?

As soon as the 19th amendment was passed, men were effectively castrated, and in many, many cases disenfranchised by their wives. No longer was the man the head of the household. No longer was he responsible for his wife. Now the wife was a “co-husband” at best, or a flat-out adversary at worst. The notion of a man making the final decision about what was best for his wife and family per his God-given vocation as husband and father was now over. Now all he was good for was bringing home the bacon – but even that wouldn’t last.
...

Yes, this is what I believe - or else I would not have posted it.

[Irving]

Shallow at best.

[jhood001]

I view anyone with this belief as having 1 or 2 possible issues in life -

1. They hate women. Not that they're homsexual, but in that they view women as an accessory to their life. Or rather, an object if you will.
2. They don't do so well with the ladies and they could really use a nudge like this to force a poor, helpless woman without rights under their roof.

I know plenty of Christian couples where both work, both *gasp* vote, and yet the husband is still the head of the household. And with that role and understanding, the husband makes pleasing his wife in all regards the point of his existence. It's a two-way street and it works well if one of the two isn't a dead-beat.

Further, if you're with a spouse, partner, or whatever else and they're voting differently than you - you're doing it wrong.

I also find it entertaining that the author mentions his dislike of Sharia Law and yet advocates stripping women of their rights.

In closing, I would say that you can't fix stupid, but I don't believe that is applicable here. I will, however, say that you can correct fucked up values and beliefs with therapy.

Repeal of the 19th sure would make it easier to keep them ornery she-devils under control though, wouldn't it?

[Bailey Guns]

This is even worthy of serious discussion?

[Ronin13]

This is even worthy of serious discussion?
Nope... unless you're a muslim and believe your wife should "dress modestly" and have no say in society. [Bang]

[roberth]

I like Ann but she is dead wrong on this.

[davsel]

I view anyone with this belief as having 1 or 2 possible issues in life -

1. They hate women. Not that they're homsexual, but in that they view women as an accessory to their life. Or rather, an object if you will.
2. They don't do so well with the ladies and they could really use a nudge like this to force a poor, helpless woman without rights under their roof.

I know plenty of Christian couples where both work, both *gasp* vote, and yet the husband is still the head of the household. And with that role and understanding, the husband makes pleasing his wife in all regards the point of his existence. It's a two-way street and it works well if one of the two isn't a dead-beat.

Further, if you're with a spouse, partner, or whatever else and they're voting differently than you - you're doing it wrong.

I also find it entertaining that the author mentions his dislike of Sharia Law and yet advocates stripping women of their rights.

In closing, I would say that you can't fix stupid, but I don't believe that is applicable here. I will, however, say that you can correct fucked up values and beliefs with therapy.

Repeal of the 19th sure would make it easier to keep them ornery she-devils under control though, wouldn't it?

I am fairly certain you posted without reading the article cited above.
I am also fairly certain you have not spent much time studying the Bible; specifically what it teaches in regards to roles of men and women, husbands and wives.
Therefore, your uninformed opinion holds little weight.

I do not understand why people do not recognize the differences between men and women, and instead, pass laws to suppress this obvious fact. Truly amazes me how many people go along with it. Just one more sign of society's downfall.

[SA Friday]

This article is a horrific example of using religion to forward suppression of another human being. The site it's from has no credibility as far as I can tell is nothing more than someone's personal diatribes. This is internet garbage at best. Why one would post it, much less promote it, is revolting.

BTW, the roles defined in the bible are, oh lets see, 2000 years outdated. What is this, some form of christian whahhabism?

[jhood001]

I am fairly certain you posted without reading the article cited above.

No, I read it. My neck got tired from shaking my head, too.



I am also fairly certain you have not spent much time studying the Bible; specifically what it teaches in regards to roles of men and women, husbands and wives.

Guilty as charged! I've read it a few times front to back, and I've spent plenty of time having others explain to me what it means to them, but I keep seeming to miss the 'studying' part. The whole reading between the lines thing to get what I want out of it just doesn't jive with me.



Therefore, your uninformed opinion holds little weight.

That is okay with me, sir!



I do not understand why people do not recognize the differences between men and women, and instead, pass laws to suppress this obvious fact. Truly amazes me how many people go along with it. Just one more sign of society's downfall.

I definitely recognize the differences between men and women. I really, REALLY have come to recognize the differences over the years. And with the differences, I've also come to recognize the similarities. One that stands out the most is the desire to be FREE. Free to chose their own destiny, free to make their own decisions, and free to be safe from the likes of you.

[Irving]

It serves no point to discuss the differences between men and women, before being able to acknowledge the difference between men and other men.

Also, anyone else ever notice that the twist top on traditionally "girl beers" are significantly more difficult to twist off than every "non-girl beer?" Any Mikes Hard or Smirnoff I've encountered is always three times more difficult to open than any regular ole lager twist off. C'est la vie.

[jhood001]

Also, anyone else ever notice that the twist top on traditionally "girl beers" are significantly more difficult to twist off than every "non-girl beer?" Any Mikes Hard or Smirnoff I've encountered is always three times more difficult to open than any regular ole lager twist off. C'est la vie.

I have not noticed this. Give me a holler if you want to conduct a scientific analysis on your theory. I'll drink them and you can do the analysis.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Repeal Davesl is more appropriate!

[jhood001]

Repeal Davesl is more appropriate!

/threadclose!

[Bailey Guns]

Why stop with the 19th? We could repeal any amendment that gives the same rights the white man enjoys to everyone else. Problem solved.

[68Charger]

I think you're getting a twisted view of what the bible says about women... Don't feel bad, it's common and comes out more in some translations than others...
I suggest some more reading- try this, let me know what you think: http://www.ransomedheart.com/daily-reading/ezer-kenegdo

[davsel]

I think you're getting a twisted view of what the bible says about women... Don't feel bad, it's common and comes out more in some translations than others...
I suggest some more reading- try this, let me know what you think: http://www.ransomedheart.com/daily-reading/ezer-kenegdo

I think it is a crock of New-Age Bee Ess.
Suggesting I receive my understanding of God's word from a wealthy mini-ministry that caters to empowering women, instead of from the Bible, is laughable.
I suggest you put down the latest best seller and try reading straight from the good book.

For anyone who believes these concepts only come from the Old Testament, here are some of the words of Paul:


1 Corinthians 11
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

11 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


Not a lot of room for (mis)translation.

[Jamnanc]

I think it is a crock of New-Age Bee Ess.
Suggesting I receive my understanding of God's word from a wealthy mini-ministry that caters to empowering women, instead of from the Bible, is laughable.
I suggest you put down the latest best seller and try reading straight from the good book.

For anyone who believes these concepts only come from the Old Testament, here are some of the words of Paul:

1 Corinthians 11
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

11 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


Not a lot of room for (mis)translation.

with all these verses, one must keep in mind that Christians believe that Jesus committed the ultimate sacrifice for man and following that example means constantly sacrificing ones self for your wife.

[davsel]

with all these verses, one must keep in mind that Christians believe that Jesus committed the ultimate sacrifice for man and following that example means constantly sacrificing ones self for your wife.

Well put - I agree with you 100%

[Rucker61]

I think it is a crock of New-Age Bee Ess.
Suggesting I receive my understanding of God's word from a wealthy mini-ministry that caters to empowering women, instead of from the Bible, is laughable.
I suggest you put down the latest best seller and try reading straight from the good book.

For anyone who believes these concepts only come from the Old Testament, here are some of the words of Paul:


Is this the same Paul who never married?

[mtnhack]

In honor of Ann Barnhardt's new web page format, I thought I'd post this classic. Yes, this is what I believe - or else I would not have posted it.
From reading your other posts, I'd expect nothing more. The bar is low.

[68Charger]

I think it is a crock of New-Age Bee Ess.
Suggesting I receive my understanding of God's word from a wealthy mini-ministry that caters to empowering women, instead of from the Bible, is laughable.
I suggest you put down the latest best seller and try reading straight from the good book.

Obvious from these statements you know not of what you speak.
It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

You dismiss my source as a "Wealthy mini-ministry", yet you are receiving your understanding of God's word from a Hedge broker?


1 Corinthians 11
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

11 Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

[/INDENT]Not a lot of room for (mis)translation.
Your grasp of translation is "laughable"

#1: Considering that 1 Corinthians was written in Ancient Greek (a dead language), and your quote is in English, then it was interpreted and translated already.

#2: The 3 most common mistakes when quoting the bible are context, context and context (not really, but I couldn't resist)... 1 Corinthians was written by the Apostle Paul to the church of Corinth to admonish them and try to bring them back to focus on what they should be focused on (Jesus) So the context of the entire book is not entirely relevant to VOTING, and is relevant to the actions of the CHURCH... the 11th chapter is related to WORSHIP... do you also believe that it commands women to have their head covered? That a man should not have long hair?

#3: The point of the link was to get you to learn- and what you were SUPPOSED to learn was that Women ARE NOT THE ENEMY... they are not yours to subjugate, to order around, to "own"... because that's they way you are coming across. I tried to guide you to the right path, but apparently we need to be a bit more obvious. The enemy uses things like this to cause division, to divide husband and wife, to pit them against each other without knowing that they are being manipulated. That was the entire point of the Ezer Kenegdo article- a husband and wife should be partners... there is a natural order- but that occurs when a man is acting Christ-like, not the other way around. In secular terms: act like a REAL MAN, and your wife will follow you. When you are not, you don't deserve it. I personally would not want a wife that just blindly follows- I appreciate her views, her experience, and welcome her input. I'm not threatened by her strengths, I value them- and her.

#4 If you really believe your wife should follow you without question, then why wouldn't you want her to vote- you get 2 votes that way [hahhah-no]
(I say this as a joke, but there is some truth to it- but in the context that if you are truly partners and agree, then your votes should align- with her choosing to agree)

[68Charger]

Another thing that is lost on knuckleheads... if men are the "head" of their wives......

Is the fall not the responsibility of men? If Adam wasn't a pussy, wouldn't the entire biblical story not have happened? Isn't it his responsibility to LEAD and not follow? To say, what the f you holding there eve, no I'm not eatin' that shit!

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you are the head of the department and responsible for all actions thereunder, or your not.

If you want to be a man, you better not think of a woman as your bi--h. Corinthians 11 is one of several that establish that you are to treat your wife as christ treats you.

How many of you actually do that? You're wife burns something on the stove, you bitch her out. She wants to do something wrong, you go along with it and then give the blame thereafter. Thats the conduct of modern man, its not "biblical" but they want to pretend it is.

People are idiots.
AMEN!
Very well put, trot...

Many men in the church will blame Eve (and therefore all women) for original Sin...
But where was Adam when Eve ate from the apple?
There has been debate about this- but I believe the original Hebrew indicates he was "With her", the previous verses in chapter 3 indicate "you" and "we", implying they were together.

So Adam went passive, watched his wife sin without intervening, and then participated himself. He's just as guilty.

[davsel]

Obvious from these statements you know not of what you speak.
It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.


Your grasp of "translation is "laughable"

#1: Considering that 1 Corinthians was written in Ancient Greek (a dead language), and your quote is in English, then it was interpreted and translated already.

#2: The 3 most common mistakes when quoting the bible are context, context and context (not really, but I couldn't resist)... 1 Corinthians was written by the Apostle Paul to the church of Corinth to admonish them and try to bring them back to focus on what they should be focused on (Jesus) So the context of the entire book is not entirely relevant to VOTING, and is relevant to the actions of the CHURCH... the 11th chapter is related to WORSHIP... do you also believe that it commands women to have their head covered? That a man should not have long hair?

#3: The point of the link was to get you to learn- and what you were SUPPOSED to learn was that Women ARE NOT THE ENEMY... they are not yours to subjugate, to order around, to "own"... because that's they way you are coming across. I tried to guide you to the right path, but apparently we need to be a bit more obvious. The enemy uses things like this to cause division, to divide husband and wife, to pit them against each other without knowing that they are being manipulated. That was the entire point of the Ezer Kenegdo article- a husband and wife should be partners... there is a natural order- but that occurs when a man is acting Christ-like, not the other way around. In secular terms: act like a REAL MAN, and your wife will follow you. When you are not, you don't deserve it. I personally would not want a wife that just blindly follows- I appreciate her views, her experience, and welcome her input. I'm not threatened by her strengths, I value them- and her.

#4 If you really believe your wife should follow you without question, then why wouldn't you want her to vote- you get 2 votes that way [hahhah-no]

You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. Unfortunately, I did not fall for your new-age ministry, and you are offended. Work it out with your pastor.

#1 I do not believe many here can read Greek, so I posted in English. It is not a long quote, and I can PM you the original Greek if you wish. It will not change the meaning I assure you.

#2 Take your own advice and pay attention to the context of my post. Funny you should bring up veils. Have you been reading ahead? http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about/74-2/

#3 So, now you are telling me what I am "SUPPOSED to learn?" And because I disagree (not as much as you may think) with you, you are now going to educate me further. Please. I must say I am impressed with the level of arrogance you have achieved.

#3-4 Please point out where I posted anything along the lines of, "subjugating, ordering around, or owning" a wife. Feel free to search my posts on other threads as well. Just one instance will suffice.

Before you mounted your high-horse and took on the task of enlightening me, perhaps you should have taken the time to read what I actually posted. You will probably be surprised to find that I completely agree with your statement of:

"...there is a natural order- but that occurs when a man is acting Christ-like, not the other way around. In secular terms: act like a REAL MAN, and your wife will follow you. When you are not, you don't deserve it. I personally would not want a wife that just blindly follows- I appreciate her views, her experience, and welcome her input. I'm not threatened by her strengths, I value them- and her."



The "partnership" part however implies complete equality. It's not meant to be quite like that.

Which brings us back to my point concerning voting - (In general terms) Women are motivated differently than men. This difference is incompatible with sound governing. Men have a natural God-given ability to lead. Women do not. Ann Barnhardt's eloquence is magnitudes above mine, but I try.

The feminization of society is a primary cause of its downfall. Men are no longer expected to act like men - In fact, they are encouraged to act/feel like women. Women are encouraged to act/fight like men. There is now such a complete blurring of the lines between men and women, and it is not meant to be this way.
Men and Women are different both physically and mentally. Each sex has their strengths and their weaknesses. These differences should be magnified and celebrated, not suppressed and denigrated. It is what makes a marriage and family work - always has been - always will be. The enemy is blurring the lines on purpose. Stop falling for it.

[Rucker61]

OP, how long have you been married?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I am fairly certain you posted without reading the article cited above.
I am also fairly certain you have not spent much time studying the Bible; specifically what it teaches in regards to roles of men and women, husbands and wives.
Therefore, your uninformed opinion holds little weight.

I do not understand why people do not recognize the differences between men and women, and instead, pass laws to suppress this obvious fact. Truly amazes me how many people go along with it. Just one more sign of society's downfall.

Are you advocating some sort of "Christian Sharia?" Merely being provocative for discussion?
I'm seriously confused.

You'd want to repeal 19, but what about 1?

[<MADDOG>]

If it is any consolation, there were serious arguments, lead by John Adams, during the drafting of our Constitution granting equal rights and suffrage to women.. Example:

Ref: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s10.html

"But let us first Suppose, that the whole Community of every Age, Rank, Sex, and Condition, has a Right to vote. This Community, is assembled--a Motion is made and carried by a Majority of one Voice. The Minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the Right of the Majority to govern, and the Obligation of the Minority to obey? from Necessity, you will Say, because there can be no other Rule. But why exclude Women? You will Say, because their Delicacy renders them unfit for Practice and Experience, in the great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprizes of War, as well as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary Nurture of their Children, that Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares. And Children have not Judgment or Will of their own. True. But will not these Reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that Men in general in every Society, who are wholly destitute of Property, are also too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right Judgment, and too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their own? If this is a Fact, if you give to every Man, who has no Property, a Vote, will you not make a fine encouraging Provision for Corruption by your fundamental Law? Such is the Frailty of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds to his Interest."

So I believe the writer of the article, and especially the arguments of biblical passages, are inane to say the least. Then again, I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night!

[cysoto]

[Sarcasm2]

It's refreshing to see that misogyny is alive and well in the 21st century... [Roll1]

[Jamnanc]

Umm. In bible times, men were at war a lot of the time. They had several wives. The wives ran businesses for the family and themselves.

Proverbs 31:10
King James Version (KJV)

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth theLord, she shall be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.


Doesn't sound like bigotry to me. Just sayin

eta: I don't support the repeal of the 19th amendment, but do think that much damage was caused to women's quality of life during ww2. Women became a large part of the work force causing more competition for jobs, eventually causing the need for most women to work outside the home and negatively impacting the historic family unit.

[Jamnanc]

Another thing that is lost on knuckleheads... if men are the "head" of their wives......

Is the fall not the responsibility of men? If Adam wasn't a pussy, wouldn't the entire biblical story not have happened? Isn't it his responsibility to LEAD and not follow? To say, what the f you holding there eve, no I'm not eatin' that shit!

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you are the head of the department and responsible for all actions thereunder, or your not.

If you want to be a man, you better not think of a woman as your bi--h. Corinthians 11 is one of several that establish that you are to treat your wife as christ treats you.

How many of you actually do that? You're wife burns something on the stove, you bitch her out. She wants to do something wrong, you go along with it and then give the blame thereafter. Thats the conduct of modern man, its not "biblical" but they want to pretend it is.

People are idiots.

Easy answer...yes. And if you think of your wife as your bitch, your doing it wrong.

[davsel]

If it is any consolation, there were serious arguments, lead by John Adams, during the drafting of our Constitution granting equal rights and suffrage to women.. Example:

Ref: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s10.html

"But let us first Suppose, that the whole Community of every Age, Rank, Sex, and Condition, has a Right to vote. This Community, is assembled--a Motion is made and carried by a Majority of one Voice. The Minority will not agree to this. Whence arises the Right of the Majority to govern, and the Obligation of the Minority to obey? from Necessity, you will Say, because there can be no other Rule. But why exclude Women? You will Say, because their Delicacy renders them unfit for Practice and Experience, in the great Business of Life, and the hardy Enterprizes of War, as well as the arduous Cares of State. Besides, their attention is So much engaged with the necessary Nurture of their Children, that Nature has made them fittest for domestic Cares. And Children have not Judgment or Will of their own. True. But will not these Reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that Men in general in every Society, who are wholly destitute of Property, are also too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right Judgment, and too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their own? If this is a Fact, if you give to every Man, who has no Property, a Vote, will you not make a fine encouraging Provision for Corruption by your fundamental Law? Such is the Frailty of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds to his Interest."

So I believe the writer of the article, and especially the arguments of biblical passages, are inane to say the least. Then again, I did not sleep in a Holiday Inn last night!

Excellent point.
It amazes me how many people today deny that the United States (Constitution) was founded on religious principles - While at the same time singing praises to our founding fathers. History escapes most.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

[Jamnanc]

Have you ever played poker without using something of value as bets? It's not much fun because without skin in the game, most people play like idiots.

[davsel]

so, using your example lets just make it, only men who own land can vote.

and to be further exclusionary, lets say you must own over 1 acre. i know most of you are sitting on 1/4 acre lots or less.

It certainly would have prevented the welfare state we have come to live in.

[<MADDOG>]

Excellent point.
It amazes me how many people today deny that the United States (Constitution) was founded on religious principles - While at the same time singing praises to our founding fathers. History escapes most.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

Umm, where do you see that in that language he is supporting your argument in regards in to women's rights? Spin much?

And while most of the founding fathers were indeed religious, they too knew history; which is why there is no mention of religion in the Constitution with the exception of the 1st Amendment, which pretty much nullifies your comment...

I am under the impression by your posts that you are predisposed to your beliefs, regardless of facts that may counter them; so I'll end it here before I expend any more of my time.

[<MADDOG>]

so, using your example lets just make it, only men who own land can vote.

and to be further exclusionary, lets say you must own over 1 acre. i know most of you are sitting on 1/4 acre lots or less.

Guys; I think you need to read it a little deeper, John Adams was for everyone voting... He is merely proposing a counter argument; if you allow male non-property owners (they too are subservient) to vote, why not women...

[davsel]

Guys; I think you need to read it a little deeper, John Adams was for everyone voting... He is merely proposing a counter argument; if you allow male non-property owners (they too are subservient) to vote, why not women...

Umm, No, John Adams was for property owners to vote, and for more people to own property in order to vote.
As far as Women voting, here is a letter he wrote to his wife on the subject:

From: http://www.masshist.org/education/resources/wallingford/Unit-4-Voting-Rights.pdf

Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 April 1776 [excerpt]
Ap. 14, 1776 [Philadelphia]


[. . .] As to Declarations of Independency, be patient. Read our Privateering Laws, and
our Commercial Laws. What signifies a Word.

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our
Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and
Apprentices were disobedient -- that schools and Colledges were grown turbulent -- that
Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters.
But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull
than all the rest were grown discontented. -- This is rather too coarse a Compliment but
you are so saucy, I wont blot it out.

Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in
full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its
full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the
subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would
compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and
all our brave Heroes would fight.

Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 April 1776 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An
Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/

[<MADDOG>]

Davesl - My last and final comment to you: I suggest you read "Founding America-Documents from the Revolution to the Bill of Rights" before taking one snippet out of one of the many letters between John Adams and his wife.

As many men do, he was using his wife as not only a sounding board, but also for another point of view...And proposed to her the very same arguments he would hear in response to allowing women equal rights.

[davsel]

Davesl - My last and final comment to you: I suggest you read "Founding America-Documents from the Revolution to the Bill of Rights" before taking one snippet out of one of the many letters between John Adams and his wife.

As many men do, he was using his wife as not only a sounding board, but also for another point of view...And proposed to her the very same arguments he would hear in response to allowing women equal rights.

Doubt it.

I suggest you follow the link I posted in my last comment to you. It contains much more than the snippet I posted.
Fact is, you are completely wrong on what John Adams advocated concerning voting rights in the new Republic.

You have the greatest tool for knowledge literally at your finger-tips.
People need to question everything they were force-fed in public school and use the internet to re-learn history.

[skullybones]

Doubt it.

People need to question everything they were force-fed in public school and use the internet to re-learn history.

Do you think before you type?

[Rucker61]

Do you think ?

FIFY. Willing to bet he isn't married, either.

[muddywings]

I can't view this at work but I think this is what you are looking for: http://www.kontraband.com/videos/12474/help-end-womens-suffrage

[68Charger]

You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. Unfortunately, I did not fall for your new-age ministry, and you are offended. Work it out with your pastor.
I was not offended, I just pointed out that you didn't know jack about Ransomed Heart ministries based on your statement- you formed a bigoted opinion, and ran with it.
I don't agree with Ms. Barnhardt's religious views, but I respect her right to believe it. I don't think you respect other people in that way, but I could be wrong.

Personally, I see it more like returning to the early Christian church by throwing away centuries of doctrine, dogma and idolatry that was injected into religion by MEN. Man has always corrupted religion to use it for their own gain- look at how Jesus confronted the Pharisees... Catholicism is one large organization that I think lost track centuries ago- I understand the tradition, the long history, but I can't agree with the doctrine... but that's a whole other discussion that I'm not trying to start.


#1 I do not believe many here can read Greek, so I posted in English. It is not a long quote, and I can PM you the original Greek if you wish. It will not change the meaning I assure you.
You stated that there was "Not a lot of room for (mis)translation." and that I should be assured it was simple to translate, I simply stated that it was already translated- and interpreted when it was translated. I am not an expert on Ancient Greek, nor do I claim to be- for some reason I'm not very assured... I don't know why (just being honest, your demeanor, perhaps?)


#2 Take your own advice and pay attention to the context of my post. Funny you should bring up veils. Have you been reading ahead? http://www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about/74-2/

I brought up veils, because I thought you'd bite and further reveal your idolatry (yep, he went there)... and Ms. Barnhardt is making a leap by claiming that allowing women to vote is responsible for undermining a man's authority over his household- if that's all it took, then it was very fragile to begin with.


#3 So, now you are telling me what I am "SUPPOSED to learn?" And because I disagree (not as much as you may think) with you, you are now going to educate me further. Please. I must say I am impressed with the level of arrogance you have achieved..
I'm amused that you're impressed, because my entire intention here was to emulate your arrogance towards my "new age bee ess" link.
I thought I'd just see how you think your medicine tastes... I could have just gone after Ms. Barnhardt, but that seemed too easy.
In case you didn't notice, not a lot of people were buying what you were selling here- perhaps it was your eloquent language, or your condescending attitude.


#3-4 Please point out where I posted anything along the lines of, "subjugating, ordering around, or owning" a wife. Feel free to search my posts on other threads as well. Just one instance will suffice.
Hmm, suggesting they be stripped of constitutional rights in order to control them? Certainly that's a form of subjugation- I tend to run all "religious" doctrine, dogma, etc through a "control" filter. You look at the fruit- if the primary purpose of it is to control people, then is it likely to be used for evil? In nearly all cases, I would err on the side of freedom. I don't consider any church immune from corruption and mis-use of power, since they are run by man.


Before you mounted your high-horse and took on the task of enlightening me, perhaps you should have taken the time to read what I actually posted. You will probably be surprised to find that I completely agree with your statement of:

"...there is a natural order- but that occurs when a man is acting Christ-like, not the other way around. In secular terms: act like a REAL MAN, and your wife will follow you. When you are not, you don't deserve it. I personally would not want a wife that just blindly follows- I appreciate her views, her experience, and welcome her input. I'm not threatened by her strengths, I value them- and her."



The "partnership" part however implies complete equality. It's not meant to be quite like that.

Which brings us back to my point concerning voting - (In general terms) Women are motivated differently than men. This difference is incompatible with sound governing. Men have a natural God-given ability to lead. Women do not. Ann Barnhardt's eloquence is magnitudes above mine, but I try.

The feminization of society is a primary cause of its downfall. Men are no longer expected to act like men - In fact, they are encouraged to act/feel like women. Women are encouraged to act/fight like men. There is now such a complete blurring of the lines between men and women, and it is not meant to be this way.
Men and Women are different both physically and mentally. Each sex has their strengths and their weaknesses. These differences should be magnified and celebrated, not suppressed and denigrated. It is what makes a marriage and family work - always has been - always will be. The enemy is blurring the lines on purpose. Stop falling for it.
I'm highly amused that you think I was on my "high-horse" for suggesting you read something from a ministry, yet you started this thread from a blog that's run by a single female Catholic and have suggest that I didn't read it, and then suggest I read further about veils... No amount of me reading Ms. Barnhardt will lead to me agreeing with her, I'm afraid. Most of her blog entries I start out agreeing with her, and then at some point she starts about doctrine intended to control and create power and she loses me completely.

I'll agree that we are mostly close here- but I'll take issue with your statement that "Men have a natural God-given ability to lead. Women do not." I'll agree with your next statement that you lack some eloquence, tho... [Coffee]

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but the WAY you're saying it is just devisive- it doesn't convince anybody, it just makes you sound like a misogynist.
There are certainly many men that lack the ability to lead- perhaps it is because they have become "feminized" as you put it, or they lack self-confidence required to inspire.
There are also some women that are leaders (Joan of Arc comes to mind)... so making a statement that generalizes ALL men and ALL women is just not accurate.

You and Ms. Barnhardt completely lost me in the second paragraph of what you quoted- "effectively castrated" because my wife can vote? really? Allowing her to exercise a constitutional right that I also have is effectively removing my testicles? She's basically saying "well, that's it- we let those women-folk vote, now we're all going to hell in a handbasket!" If allowing my wife to perform a civic duty by helping to choose elected officials completely undermines my authority in my household, then I really didn't have any to begin with... I'm not threatened by it, and I don't consider my wife my "adversary", or even a "co-husband" because the government recognizes her right to vote. I don't see how it nullifies my ability or authority to decide what's right for my family (including my wife). To tell you the truth, my wife looks to me for information on how to vote- we discuss it together, and fill out our mail-in ballots (can't stand going to the polls) and send them in- it's something we do together, it doesn't drive us apart.

I know I'm late to responding, and the thread has gone in a completly different direction- but I did not have time to respond earlier with life being lived.

[Ronin13]

I'll just say this, and comment no more on the subject-
If someone here thinks we should adhere completely to a book written 2,000 years ago (roughly), as written, despite all the ideas that are clearly out-of-date (owning slaves, women are 2nd class citizens, etc,) then you cannot get angry with those who want to adhere to the mind-numbing and violent rhetoric of a "prophet" from years gone by (See: Mohammad and Islam).

I see it this way- the bible is a good map, but should not be adhered to 100% and is not the end all be all say on all matters. Then again, I question and steer away from any religious zealots that are "true believers."

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

I'll just say this, and comment no more on the subject-
If someone here thinks we should adhere completely to a book written 2,000 years ago (roughly), as written, despite all the ideas that are clearly out-of-date (owning slaves, women are 2nd class citizens, etc,) then you cannot get angry with those who want to adhere to the mind-numbing and violent rhetoric of a "prophet" from years gone by (See: Mohammad and Islam).

I see it this way- the bible is a good map, but should not be adhered to 100% and is not the end all be all say on all matters. Then again, I question and steer away from any religious zealots that are "true believers."

Some people say similar things about the 2nd amendment...

[davsel]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2028&version=DRA

Acts 28
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came very many to him unto his lodgings; to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, out of the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening.

24 And some believed the things that were said; but some believed not.

25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, Paul speaking this one word: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet,

26 Saying: Go to this people, and say to them: With the ear you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.

27 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut; lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore to you, that this salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.

[<MADDOG>]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/pperron/images_zps6f30d265.jpg (http://s34.photobucket.com/user/pperron/media/images_zps6f30d265.jpg.html)

[Rucker61]

What did Jesus have to say about men and women?

[centrarchidae]

Maybe, but once USDA starts writing checks and BLM starts leasing grazing land at a quarter of the free-market rate, they ain't exactly limited-government people anymore.


it would have put the brakes on the liberalism too. i dont personally know any liberal ranchers or farmers. Im not saying they dont exist, but I never met one in 40+ years. Also, I have never met a rancher or farmer who listens to rap or wear skinny jeans, so there maybe some extra benefits too.

[68Charger]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2028&version=DRA

Acts 28
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came very many to him unto his lodgings; to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, out of the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening.

24 And some believed the things that were said; but some believed not.

25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, Paul speaking this one word: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet,

26 Saying: Go to this people, and say to them: With the ear you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.

27 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut; lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore to you, that this salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it.

I'll use the Douay-Rheims edition, since you seem to favor it:

Romans 16:17-18Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

18 For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.

2 Corinthians 2:5-11Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)


5 And if any one have caused grief, he hath not grieved me; but in part, that I may not burden you all.
6 To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient, which is given by many:

7 So that on the contrary, you should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

8 Wherefore, I beseech you, that you would confirm your charity towards him.

9 For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things.

10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

11 That we be not overreached by Satan. For we are not ignorant of his devices.

[ringhilt]

If you want to have a serious discussion about who gets to vote, forget about owning land, forget about any religious principles. The right to vote should come down to who has responsibilities in society and who does not.
Men have rightfully earned their right to vote by being productive members of society who also have obligations to society. Women were given their right to vote without any obligations to society. Men are required (by law and social convention) to man up and take care of their spouse and/or any children they father. Women do not have this mandatory obligation. Women have options. Their body, their choice. Men are required by law to register for the draft at age 18. Women are not. Men get drafted during war time, women do not. Women have options. This is not to say women do not contribute greatly to society. They do. But, women simply do not have the same obligations and responsibilities as men. Society bends over backwards to help women at every turn with affirmative action, shelters, job assistance. Even social convention says we are required to help women. Its women and children first. When the Titanic went down and there were not enough life boats. Who were the majority of deaths? Men.

When women cowgirl up and take on the same responsibilities and obligations as men, then absolutely YES, give them the right to vote. I know and work with many women that will make smart choices and provide a different viewpoint from my own. The feminine side of things. But women need to have skin in the game just as men do in order to vote.

I would even extend this to those who are on public assistance. For the year(s) you are on public assistance you do not get to vote at all. When you get off public assistance, you get your right to vote back. why you may ask? Well if you are on public assistance what are you going to vote for? More money from the public treasury.
If we restricted voting to those who have responsibilities and obligations to society we wouldn't have so much of this bleeding heart liberal crap. Those with skin in the game will carefully consider their votes and what direction they steer the country. Those who receive largess from the government dole will invariably vote for more largess from the government. And once they outnumber the productive class, it is a death spiral into oblivion.
And we might just be there already.

My $1.02 worth.

[Rucker61]

If you want to have a serious discussion about who gets to vote, forget about owning land, forget about any religious principles. The right to vote should come down to who has responsibilities in society and who does not.
Men have rightfully earned their right to vote by being productive members of society who also have obligations to society. Women were given their right to vote without any obligations to society. Men are required (by law and social convention) to man up and take care of their spouse and/or any children they father. Women do not have this mandatory obligation. Women have options. Their body, their choice. Men are required by law to register for the draft at age 18. Women are not. Men get drafted during war time, women do not. Women have options. This is not to say women do not contribute greatly to society. They do. But, women simply do not have the same obligations and responsibilities as men. Society bends over backwards to help women at every turn with affirmative action, shelters, job assistance. Even social convention says we are required to help women. Its women and children first. When the Titanic went down and there were not enough life boats. Who were the majority of deaths? Men.

When women cowgirl up and take on the same responsibilities and obligations as men, then absolutely YES, give them the right to vote. I know and work with many women that will make smart choices and provide a different viewpoint from my own. The feminine side of things. But women need to have skin in the game just as men do in order to vote.

I would even extend this to those who are on public assistance. For the year(s) you are on public assistance you do not get to vote at all. When you get off public assistance, you get your right to vote back. why you may ask? Well if you are on public assistance what are you going to vote for? More money from the public treasury.
If we restricted voting to those who have responsibilities and obligations to society we wouldn't have so much of this bleeding heart liberal crap. Those with skin in the game will carefully consider their votes and what direction they steer the country. Those who receive largess from the government dole will invariably vote for more largess from the government. And once they outnumber the productive class, it is a death spiral into oblivion.
And we might just be there already.

My $1.02 worth.

Jerry Pournelle, science fiction writer, stated it more simply: if you pay taxes, you vote.