Voting

Today is election day in America. Whatever a fundamentalist’s beliefs about separating from the rest of the world they do not extend to shunning contact with sinners in the line leading to the ballot box.

Voting itself has almost reached quasi-sacrament status in fundyland with pastors and leaders using the days leading up to any election to spread the word that it is the duty of the faithful before God and man to go pull the lever for whichever candidate is currently in fundy favor. To maintain their non-profit status, churches have historically not gone to endorsing candidates directly from the pulpit but they will have them come in to their service, award them a Bible and let them speak from the pulpit. That’s all.

But as popular as voting is with fundys, they dearly wish that fewer Americans were permitted to do it — About 50% fewer if the truth were known. Women, you see, are fragile creatures who use emotion instead of logic in their decision making and really are in no shape to make choices about who should run the country. Women’s suffrage is just one more step on the road to destruction and Susan B. Anthony was, quite frankly, the devil.

Of course, simple math shows that if non-fundy women vote then fundy women are forced to do the same to even the score at the ballot box. So fundies make this compromise: women are allowed to vote as long as they vote the way their husbands, fathers, and pastors tell them to — as long as that man is a conservative. For if a women votes against her husband she is exercising authority over him by canceling out his vote. This is only permissible if her husband is a godless liberal and she’s taking a moral stand; otherwise, it’s just rebellion.

Bless their dear sweet hearts.

181 thoughts on “Voting”

  1. Hmm, I never heard any complaints about women voting in my small slice of fundie-dom. However, I did hear many thinly veiled commands to vote Republican.

    1. It leads me to wonder if the resistance to women voters is from the HAC camp? Or does that spread into the BJU and PCC camps as well?

      1. You see that’s the catch. You’ll never hear them say “women shouldn’t vote.” What you’ll hear them do is give a long-winded speech on women being submissive to their male leadership whenever the topic comes up.

        You’ll also see dirty looks and snide comments among the populace whenever the women’s suffrage movement comes up in discussion.

      2. I went to PCC and they said women should vote, but with a HEAVY undercurrent that it should be guided by the authorities over them. Most fundies won’t forbid women to vote, cause they want the proxy multipliers that they see women as

      3. While I was at BJU, not only were women encouraged to vote, but many times it was the female students that were out signing up people to vote. I never heard it said that their vote should be guided by anything other than their Christian conscience….

    2. It’s a wildly unpopular point of view and few fundy leaders will come out with it unless pressed. But it’s there and I’ve heard it from more than one fundy pastor over the years.

      1. *Waving hand wildly over here*

        I been there. In our previous church it was widely held that women were never intended to cast any vote- in the church or in government. We were only encouraged to vote in order to “drown out” the liberal women who would use their voting power for “eeeevilll” Oddly enough, we were told in no uncertain terms to vote for a woman for vice-president. SO thankful that we fled the insanity well before this year’s election got underway.

        1. That’s a good one. “Vote for the female Republican for Vice President, in order to fight back the liberals who want women to, you know, hold public office and stuff.”

        1. It’s ok, guys. You might just have been less likely to notice this, too, since it isn’t directed at you. (The only times I’ve heard this it’s been subtle.) Darrell also sometimes posts things that women don’t identify with 100%. :wink:

  2. Never heard this one. But I have heard “Now I’m not going to tell you who to vote for, but no good Bible-believing Christian will vote for someone who supports queer rights, abortion . . .” and so on and so forth.

    1. I guess I’ve either had an experience shared by nobody else here or I’m saying this really poorly.

      Women are politically active in fundamentalism — and its smiled upon as long as it’s the _right kind_ of political activism, namely that supported by the pastor.

      But stop and imagine a scenario where a fundy woman were to inform her husband or pastor she was going to vote against his candidate of choice. Imagine what the response would be. That’s what I’m getting at.

      Women get to vote…as long as it’s the _right_ vote. Like I said, it’s not something you hear trumpeted from the housetops but it’s a layer in fundy thinking that comes to the surface if you prod a little.

    2. What’s more I’ve heard fundamentalist women who have said to my face that they don’t trust other women to vote the right way. The sentiment is out there.

      And ask any fundy theology or history professor whether women’s suffrage was a positive thing and you’re likely to get a very, very long and convoluted answer indeed.

      1. Darrell: We’re really taught not to trust each other, and not just in voting. It’ll never be openly acknowledged, of course, but women buy into the line of “inherent female inferiority/women easily deceived/whatever line the pastor is spewing at the moment” when it’s drilled into their heads enough. Each woman may think that she herself is capable of doing the right thing, but she won’t trust the other ladies to do the same.

        Divide and conquer, big time.

      2. Ask a history professor at BJU this question, and there is a 50/50 chance that you will be talking to a strong female with feminist leanings. Definitely not the norm on most fundy U campuses. Somehow, I think they don’t really belong there, but I am glad they are there, instilling some sense in their students.

    3. Nope, Darrell, I’ve experienced the same thing. Maybe not IFB or mainstream Baptist churches, but in the Quiverfull/Patriarchial/Home-schooling/Home-churcing movements there is a large emphasis on allowing women to vote. They don’t understand why a woman should vote. If she votes differently then her husband then not only has she rebelled but she has also cancelled out his vote…”it just doesn’t make any sense.”

      Yeah, they try to bring logic into their misogyny

  3. I remember in my Fundy church in upstate, NY when President Regan was running again, our Pastor came right out and told the congregation how to vote. In my humble opinion, ALL churches should have their 501(C)3′s revoked.

    1. I disagree. To quote Chief Justice John Marshall “the power to tax involves the power to destroy”

      I’d rather not have that kind of power over the church-as-organization handed to the state.

      1. That’s true, but there’s also the inherent danger in accepting tax exempt status that there are some evils that would then cost the church too much financially to say (let’s say decrying segregators, or Japanese detention camps — don’t wanna bring current events in).

        Taxes obviously would be a problem/cost, but I’m not convinced Christ’s church is quite so impotent as to be able to be destroyed by taxes, like a business can be.

        ;)

    2. I think the government should pass a regulation that churches ought not to acknowledge the presence of a politician more than just any other visitor. Many churches do NOT deserve the 501(C)3 status.

  4. My wife and I have some political conversations, but we don’t feel the need to vote the same way…we often do vote the same way, but we don’t always. Last presidential election was that way. My wife is quite torn in this election. My guess is that we’ll vote the same, but I couldn’t tell you for sure.

    Recently I listened to a wonderful sermon by Mark Dever about how a Christian should approach politics. I liked it a lot. If you have time it is well worth your time to listen. http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/audio/2010/09/jesus-paid-taxes-mark-1213-17/

    Jesus paid his taxes.

  5. I too haven’t usually heard it said straight-out that women shouldn’t vote, but female suffrage is something that’s often quietly viewed as suspect. For example, I have heard someone say that women are too emotional to vote wisely; they are too easily swayed by a candidate’s words and can’t really be trusted to vote on principles. :???:

    1. What pastor’s wife said, but with this addition: Minorities are even less able to vote wisely and more likely to fall for crooked (democrat) politicians than women. :(

    2. Yes, I remember hearing that the reason a woman shouldn’t be President is because she might be too emotional during “that time of the month” and start a war. Honestly.

      1. I’ve heard that too!!!! I haven’t been that angry in a long time. What complete nonsense. Also apparently such people have no grasp of history. There have been a number of extremely successful women rulers and prime ministers throughout history.

      2. LOL, I remember not only hearing that, but believing it! Of course, that was when I was enduring puberty and could totally identify with the idea of a woman being irrational during “that time of the month”.

      3. Tell that to “The Iron Lady” AKA Thatcher, She led not only a wartime Britain, but the dismantling of the vast majority of the unions. I disagree with her politically, but I have infinitely more respect for her than for Reagan. :evil:

      1. I love the mouse over caption as well. And you are right about the sacrament idea — especially for people who don’t believe in any sacraments.

  6. One time, some guy tried to say he believed in one vote per family. Of course, you know who would cast that vote. To make it really good, he wanted to ensure that single people could not vote. The really stupid thing about all his blather is that he was single himself. :roll:

    I’ve always understood that Fundies actually despise women voting.

    I’m a fan of early voting. Part of the reason is I hate lines.

    The other part is that I have to vote at this one particular Fundy church. The pastor tried to lay a load of malarkey on me once, and that was enough. I won’t set foot in there at all. Honesty is better than a truckload of bull AFAIC.

  7. Here is a verse that some Fundies don’t like:

    Romans 13:1b – …there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

    1. They like it when their people are in office, but they hate it when someone else is.

      Come to think of it, I feel that way, too, but I don’t go around preaching it as the absolute truth.

  8. This was my first time to vote outside of Fundyism, and I was so relieved to have this past Sunday’s sermon be about a BIBLE PASSAGE instead of about politics. Voting never came up. It just didn’t. Perhaps my non-Funday pastor has concluded that as adults we will do our civic duty and can use our own brains to choose the correct candidate. Amazing.

    1. I had a similiar experience this weekend. My pastor actually said this:
      “Good morning, everybody! Today is Halloween. Whether youre ok with that or not, it’s still Halloween. It’s also Reformation day. Whether youre ok with that or not, it’s still true. So, Happy Halloween and Reformation day!”

      And then he preached a sermon from the book of 1Peter and never mentioned election day or politics. I dont miss fundyland.

      1. Wow, Tony. :grin: It’s kind of amazing to see the difference, isn’t it? I’m so glad I didn’t have to listen to another, “Now, I’m not going to tell you how to vote, but…” speech this year.

    2. Wow, a BIBLE PASSAGE! lol

      Unfortunately that was my reaction when I first found a good church after Fundy-U. Usually at Fundy U a Bible passage was just read so that we could say that we ‘preach the Bible’ – something out of the OT about landmarks or hyssop – then the speeker would say whatever the stink he wanted.

      1. Ah yes, the old, “Here’s what I’m going to say now let’s find a verse or word in a verse that comes close,” Fundie Immaculate-impression Sermon Trick.

        (FTR: the immaculate-impression sermon is the one inspired by the last song Sister Peaches Galore belted out during the offering and gid impressed on the m-o-g between the Pastor’s throne and the sacred desk.)

  9. Back in the day, the fundies were in large part the reason women *got* suffrage. Because they just figured they’d vote the way their husband wanted, and so that doubled their power.

    Funny how it didn’t stay that way. :lol:

  10. I heard all kinds of blather in 2007 about how women should not be allowed in politics at all. I remember one preacher lecturing me on how it was evil for women to be in any position of political leadership. He was, of course, referring to Hillary Clinton.
    When McCain named his VP candidate that all changed of course. The same preacher was thanking God for her and saying that she “was raised up for such a time as this.”
    Inconsistency, thy name is Fundy.

    1. Wow, my head just exploded. “Wimmins … they ain’t good fer nuthin’! Not fer thinkin’, not fer votin’!”

    2. Perfect example for this thread. It always makes me sad to see a woman who has been so brainwashed she starts regurgitating these beliefs herself.

      The emotional and self-esteem abuse done to these women is shameful. :cry:

      1. “Perfect example for this thread. It always makes me sad to see a woman who has been so brainwashed she starts regurgitating these beliefs herself.

        The emotional and self-esteem abuse done to these women is shameful. :cry:

        Sad to say, but you go along to get along in Fundyland. When it comes to your spiritual survival, it’s way too easy to wind up accepting such destructive beliefs. Been there, wish I could go back through time to slap some sense into my younger self. Thank God I was not married then, otherwise I could never have escaped.

    1. And there’s always the “Tea Party,” because the Republicans aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do.

      Btw. Why are they all white? :?:

        1. I appreciate the tea party and what they stand for. This is exactly what freedom loving folks should do, organize for change. They stand for smaller more responsible government and I’m all about it. I’m feeling particularly good today about the tea partiers, seeing in the paper this morning the virtual landslide they helped create in yesterday’s election. Hey its America you don’t have to like them but I don’t see why you have to throw a nasty homosexual rant on them. I am regularly seeing nastiness here on SFL that appears to be as nasty as anything I’ve seen in my years in fundyland. Maybe John wasn’t so wrong about pointing out some of the problems on this site.

        1. Say what you think about the Tea Baggers, um I mean Tea Party. I’d rather just let them tell me about themselves. I will warn you ahead of time, there is a whole lot of crazy in this clip:

  11. I remember a sermon based on Psalm 109:8 right before Voting Day one year. I thisclose to interrupting with the question: “What is the context of that verse?” But that’s why women are to be silent in the church, right? And that’s why that particular church allowed one vote per family in the congregational voting… :roll:

  12. I’ve heard it all. To longing for the good old days when men voted for the entire family to insinuating that women shouldn’t take pain medication during childbirth because its supposed to be experienced ‘with sorrow’.

    I voted this morning. I have no idea if my husband and I voted for the same things or not.

    1. No pain medication. Wow, that’s a new one for me. Wait’ll that mannagawd gets a kidney stone, and see what he thinks about pain medication then.

      1. BTW, sin entered the world through Eve, but so did redemption:

        From the curse on the ‘serpent’

        Genesis3:
        15 And I will put enmity
        between you and the woman,
        and between your offspring and hers;
        he will crush your head,
        and you will strike his heel.”

        1. “the woman” mentioned in Genesis 3 is obviously Mary, the virgin Mother of God – though you won’t hear that preached in fundie churches.

        1. I was amening your comment, “I’ll birth med free when men work the soil WITH THEIR HANDS!”, but your second comment is true as well. I see it as God extending mercy to Eve. Yes, she failed and sinned, but God would allow her the privilege of bearing the Savior (which is not something to proud about per se, but rather deeply humbled).

    2. I told my husband who to vote for, since I keep up with local politics better than he does and he’d also just gotten back from a year in Iraq. Wouldn’t the fundies have a heyday with me. :lol:

  13. My wife doesn’t vote (gasp from the crowd). She has no interest in politics or voting or government, and I have never been able to convince her otherwise. She said that she would just vote for whomever I wanted, but that just struck me as wrong for some reason. I hope that she eventually changes her mind, but if she does, I wouldn’t force her to vote for my person (that is not biblical leadership or submission).

    1. I consider it an honor to vote at every election. Women who came before me fought to be granted the right to vote, and that right is a gift they have given to me. I don’t want to throw that gift away by not voting. It does make me sad when women don’t vote. I try not to judge (sometimes I succeed; sometimes I don’t), but it does make me sad. :sad:

    2. Same here. I’m a political junkie while my wife could care less. I vote early, while she’ll only vote if I take her to the voting place on election day. If she gets out when I stop, then she’ll go in and vote. If she doesn’t, we go on our happy way and get something to eat. Today, she voted. I’m happy with whatever she decides to do.

  14. I often heard in fundie land, that women could not be trusted to vote or hold elective office, because like Eve, women are easier to deceive than men.
    Even more nonsense I heard in fundie church.
    White Christian men were meant to rule the world. Asians and Jews could run business. Blacks and Latinos were to be a permanent servant class. And women were meant to be wives and mothers. This was the way god set things up. The race and gender god picked for you, would determine your career and station in life. Not need to stress out at the high school career day, just look at yourself in the mirror and you will know god’s will for your life.
    The third world was better off under Western colonialism. Plus the white man brought the gift of Christianity to the heathen world.
    It is surprising how much fundies have in common with their hated adversaries, the Mormons.

      1. Well, the Bible does say that the woman was deceived but not the man. The devil used cognitive functions and logical fallacies that genuinely misled the woman. The man knew what he was in for and still did it.

        1. Tony Mel: The ability to be deceived is treatable with doses of proper education and the ability to learn from others’ mistakes. Willful rebellion? Not so sure about that one. That requires a heavy dose of humility, which can be quite bitter to swallow.

        2. And have you heard what I call “The Noble Adam View”?
          It goes something like this… Yes, Eve was deceived. Adam knew he was sinning, but he did if for Eve. He knew that they would be separated because she had sinned, and besides, what would become any children they might have if she was a sinner and he was not? So he took of the fruit for her, so that they could both be in it together.

          This is something I learned in Fundy Sunday School. With this interpretation, not only can you condemn Eve and consequently all women for being easy to deceive/injudicious, but you can elevate Adam and consequently all men for being so noble and self-sacrificing due foolishness of their wives.

          I don’t know if a lot of fundy churches use this interpretation, I only know that I heard this in my old church. Has anyone else heard this?

        3. @Undine, I’ve definitely heard of it though I don’t think I’ve ever been in a service where the preacher presented it that way. You’re absolutely right about the implications about men and women if that were the view.

          “Noble Adam” makes a romantic idea, but I see nothing in Scripture that supports it. Rather Adam’s sin is seen as BAD (willful rebellion); if he’d done it out of good motives, I think it takes some of the “badness” away from his choice. And that’s just not right, IMO.

        4. Ugh, yes, I’ve heard that! Such a load of malarkey.

          I’ve also heard another theory, and it actually makes more sense.

          Adam was the one who got the commandment directly from God not to eat from the trees. Eve only got it indirectly, from Adam, and then Adam added that little “neither shall you touch it” hedge.

          Then the snake showed up.

          At least Eve tried to put up a good argument when the snake started in, but she was not directly informed by God. She didn’t have direct diving knowledge as Adam had, so she was more easily deceived.

          But wait! Adam is standing there right next to her, not saying a word. Why didn’t he jump in? Turns out he was just as tempted as she was, but he wasn’t willing to take a bite until he saw what happened to her. When she didn’t keel over or explode on contact with the fruit, then Adam got his bite.

          Of course, then you get the blame-go-round next when God shows up. Adam sells Eve down the river, and Eve blames the snake. At least she admits she was deceived. Adam had the nerve to blame not just Eve, but also God Himself for making Eve.

          Yes, I’m doing the LMcC-in-need-of-caffeine paraphrase, but the idea is there.

        5. So the woman was deceived, but the man knew it was wrong, and did it anyway. Which one is worse? Hmmmm …

          At least Eve put up a little fight. Adam just said, “Oh, you’re eating that? OK, I will too.”

        6. If anything, instead of trying to divvy up everything as men do this and women do that, maybe we should all take a step back. We are all the genetic product of a man and a woman, and we need to realize that we get what we have — good and bad — through both of them. What we have that is good ultimately comes from God, certainly, but as much as can be at least semi-determined by genetics and/or environment comes through our parents.

        7. Wonder how history might have changed if Adam hsd only spoke up and said, “Evie, a moment on you lips, a lifetime on you hips!”
          Then maybe the original, “Do these fig leaves make me look fat?” question could have been avoided all together… saving us from at least one GIECO commercial. :shock:

        8. Oy Vey! george! hsd? really what were you thinking? no, it’s had… not lsd… HAD. And it’s Geico… really george it’s so simple a caveman could do it. :roll:

        9. Uh @greg, that’s as easy as they come. No of course women are NOT the weaker gender! I hope that wasn’t a serious question.

        10. @greg, I do believe women are the “weaker vessel” because of 1 Peter 3:7. That verse used to annoy me so much! But now when I look at it, I see that Paul was telling men, who do tend to be bigger and stronger than women, to 1) live with their wives in an understanding way, 2) show honor to her, and 3) recognize that wives heirs of grace together with husbands. It’s not saying, “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in a condescending way, showing dishonor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are obviously inferior.” I think sometimes people made it SEEM that way, but it’s not. Some people seem to think that men are like a strong and useful coffee mug, but women, the “weaker vessel”, were like a styrofoam cup, cheap and easily crunched up and discarded. I’ve learned to change the analogy: perhaps women are instead a crystal goblet, precious and delicate.

          In our day and age, we focus on that word “weaker” and it comes across as offensive, but I like to focus on the rest: the honor and dignity and equality before Christ that God gives women, especially in first century culture that didn’t even see women as worth getting an education.

        11. @Pastors Wife, TKS for your reasoned response. I think it was on SFL that I shared that since I’m retired and finally gone from the IFB I enjoy studying the Bible and sorting out just what I believe and why, based on the scriptures, and how that I have not been able to satisfy myself about women and their role in the church. I still don’t have the answers I want, but it does seem apparent that there is clearly different roles that men and women have but I’m just not clear on how that should play out. That remaining quiet in the church is hard to get around. Just from observation we can obviously see many differences. Does anyone seriously think that women are not more emotional than men? It seems that on this site folks want to pretend that the only differences are strength and genitalia. I know for a fact its deeper than that and scripture tends to show that their are specific roles for the sexes to play. Maybe I’m just rambling but I would like to satisfy myself with regards to this question or at least get abit closer to the answers than what I currently am.

        12. @greg is misusing the English word weaker to imply inferiority. I know more than one “weaker vessel”, who would be happy to show him which of the 2 of them is weaker, and which is factually challenged. Need to stop focusing on a tiny phrase whrn the verse is about honoring, respecting your wife as the equal heir in grace to the husband. The answer is still no.

        13. Ps “weaker vessel” is a metaphorical image used to explain why husbands should honor respect and treat as equals their wives who often (but not always) are physically (and at the time educationally) weaker and were often dominated and demeaned.

        14. @Greg:

          “Does anyone seriously think that women are not more emotional than men? ”

          *laughs* You have clearly never lived in the South during football season or in Indiana during March Madness. The male emotional levels skyrocket during those times.

          Seriously, I do not believe that either sex is inherently more emotional than the other. It’s a matter of which emotions come out, and in which circumstances. Of course, if you see men as the norm and women as something that deviates from it, we will seem more emotional. If, OTOH, women are seen as the norm and men as the deviant (in the normative sense), the men would be seen as more emotional, although in very different ways from which women are seen now.

          We’re different, but that does not make one sex or the other inferior.

          Also, when looking at sex roles in Scripture, one must also look at the culture. In Greco-Roman times, men were naturally much older than their teenage brides, and marriages were more likely to be arranged. Husbands also often had affairs with both female prostitutes and other men, and it was acceptable. You can’t simply pull out what Paul said to them and make it applicable to all cultures.

          In many third-world cultures, for example, women do the heavy labor and men do little or nothing. In the American frontier, women enjoyed more equality because it took every hand to be involved in working a farm. In some parts of Afghanistan, men often marry pre-teen brides and have a young boy on the side. Here in the Western countries, some men marry women with education levels equal to theirs or maybe higher.

          If you want to get nit-picky, the norms weren’t even the same across the Biblical world. Women living under Greek influence had fewer freedoms than women under more Roman influence. notice the women in Scripture who had the most restrictions put on them were under Greek influence, while other women were free to do more.

          In any event, good luck finding one Scriptural norm that would allow both men and women use all they have to God’s glory while creating a harmonious home.

        15. Oh I didn’t even see that question. You can make the case (without any real point) that in general/average women are phyisically less strong, claiming they are more emotional or trying to discredit emotion is absurd. Women & men are both emotional beings. You can’t make that case from physiology, psychology, studies, Bible or anywhere else. That’s just a misogynistic myth that’s been around well past it’s expiration date.

        16. When the Bible discusses that Eve was deceived but not Adam, that discussion is actually in reference to explaining that Eve fell in Adam.

          Paul is in the middle of explaining that the created order gave men prominence over women. He first points out that Adam was created first, and then he adds that verse (KJV, here) “but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” He’s not talking about any greater tendency in women to be deceived, but he is pointing out that even though Eve was deceived and Adam knowingly sinned, Eve was still made to suffer in the transgression. That is, Adam was her corporate head. God did not break out a separate deal for Eve, even though she was merely hoodwinked. She fell in Adam because Adam had prominence over her.

          That’s why Paul adds “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in [the] childbearing”. He is making reference to God’s promise that elevated Eve, that her seed would destroy the serpent. In other words, Eve fell in Adam, but women are not saved when their male mates get saved. Women are not dependent upon men for salvation. Eve fell in Adam, but God specifically decreed that her salvation is independent of what her husband/father/male counterpart does: she is saved in the birth of the Seed of the Woman, the One Who Crushes The Serpent.

          The verse has nothing to do with any tendency to be deceived in women that is greater than the same tendency in men. That entire passage is talking about the expectations of moral society that women will be more retiring (ie, less prominent) than men.

          For proof, just look at the scores of men who have really screwed that verse up time and time again, even though the context is clear and plain.

        17. @Bassenco, you’ve given me a lot to think about. “She was IN THE TRANSGRESSION” meaning although deceived, she had still transgressed in Adam. Makes sense.

        18. This has been very fascinating to read. I’d never contemplated the idea that Eve being deceived could be anything but an insult towards her (and used so often as an insult against women in general). Fantastic. Eve at least took some arguing over it.
          That is really interesting.

  15. That’s a good one. “Vote for the female Republican for Vice President, in order to fight back the liberals who want women to, you know, hold public office and stuff.”

    1. Actually, I thought it was really insightful. At first, I was like, I’ve never experienced that. But reading Darrell and PW in the comments I realized I have. The idea that women shouldn’t really be involved in politics is subtle, but it’s definitely there. Just because a rule is unspoken doesn’t mean it isn’t in place. Sometimes it means the rule-makers aren’t so stupid that they would say it out loud.

    2. I most CERTAINLY know of churches that teach this. It’s not true of all fundamentalism, but it’s definitely true of some of it …

    3. I think the preacher says what he says at the church and when everyone gets back home reality kicks in (probably in the preachers home as well) I know it did in our home, and things get back to normal. A couple of phrases come to mind. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world and then my ol favorite, if momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy! One that I tell on myself pretty regularly is that “I rule the roost, and my wife rules the rooster”

      I think there have been plenty of comments here to show that this post is all wet.

      1. Oh, you must have missed the part above where I said I’ve experienced this sentiment. The post (with Darrell’s and PW’s comments) is right on, in my experience. And the experience of not a few other women, it seems. Perhaps your perception is either inaccurate or unrepresentative.

  16. Anyone want to go with Robert Heinlein’s philosophy? The only ones allowed to participate in government are the ones who have risked their lives for the sake of their country (I guess in the book it was “planet” but the gist is the same). No service = no citizenship = no voting. I forget how he classified everyone else who wasn’t a citizen…

    Been a *long* time since I read that book…

    1. No! I’m definitely not cut out for the armed forces, although I thank God for those who are. The only times I risked my life for the sake of my country was when I gave birth! (OK, being a bit facetious here!)

      BTW, I read that book too, but I too forgot what they called non-citizens.

      1. IIRC, the term was civilians. While I don’t think I’d do well in the military either, I do think some sort of civil service should be part of a young person’s life. Joining the military could be one option, so could the CCC (an extremely effective idea who’s time should come again) or being a teacher or emergency worker in an area where they’re needed (not just in big cities, a lot of small towns and rural areas could use the help).
        And for the record I vote. A lot of women (and more than a few men) gave a great deal so I could have that right and I will not insult their memories by refusing it. That and the fact that IMNSHO, if you don’t vote, you have no business bitching about the government you were too ignorant or lazy to influence and work to improve.

    2. I would go along with everyone having to do some kind of public service, but I don’t think it should have to be military. Militarist ideology is one of the major problems with our country today, as is the resultant spending ourselves into bankrupcy on wars.

    3. People who didn’t qualify for or weren’t needed for military duty could earn citizenship by doing all kinds of work needed to keep the society going. I don’t remember what exactly–one of the examples may have been being the person who makes sure the books are shelved in the library. It all seemed like things that required only basic skills plus some on-the-job training and/or unpleasant stuff that many people didn’t want to do, such as sewage work.

      Michael Z. Williamson wrote about a culture in which you might be polled regularly, but you only became a voting citizen by first amassing a set value of money/business/goods and then permanently giving it up. Voting citizens were _the only_ people on the _entire_ planet who were provided free food, housing, and medical care, plus a small stipend. Everybody else had to have the resources to care for himself, or friends willing to do so, or access to some charity with the resources to do so, or die.

    1. I’m not 100% sorry that women who have that view decline to vote, when I consider that otherwise they would be likely to vote for candidates who think the same way.

    2. Thanks for nothing, Robin! ;) now I’m gonna cry myself to sleep tonight! Left a comment, we’ll see if it gets allowed through. You’d think shed be embarrased to have whiffed on so many basic facts, I closed my comment with a brief prayer foor God to PLEASE keep her from poisoning her kids minds with that propogandistc/mysoginistic BS civics lesson (didn’t put BS, but I was thinking it).

      1. I feel sorry for their kids, too. Maybe in another 20 years they will start a blog about life as as fundie Steve Anderson’s kid

        1. There’s already similar blogs out there. Hillary McFarland has her Quivering Daughters site and there’s a plethora of other patriarchy/patriocentricity survivors that post about their experiences.

        2. @Lizzy F., the stories of women raised in rigid patriarchal homes make me so thankful for my parents. Although they were very strict in many ways (no TV, no pants, no makeup, no music with drums, etc.), I was never told I was “defrauding” some boy when I was simply acting like an innocent child. Boy, some of the stories of the home lives of those Quiverful/etc. women make my blood boil!

        1. Called her out on the truly idiotic term “democratic republic”, which really is as obvious an oxymoron as there is.

          And really ripped into her not understanding what voting is. To confuse voting for someone to represent your values with ruling is one of the absolute dumbest things I’ve read in my life. Even the president is so far removed institutionally from ruling over anyone, let alone voters, it’s borderline criminal shed be allowed to teach civics to anyone.

        2. ah her latest post was even better. She even used the term “public fool bus” which I thought was exceptionally clever.

          I don’t know if she’ll post my reply or not, but as the parent of a child with autism who has had to rely heavily on the school system for therapies and things that we couldn’t dream of being able to afford privately, I had to say a couple of things. Hopefully they were coherent, I kept editing because I know she’s pregnant and I didn’t want to get her upset and upset the baby.

          I just had to bring up that because of very capable educators who helped us along the way that my son has gone from being almost 4 and not able to speak a sentence that wasn’t a repeat of what he’d already heard, to being 6 and speaking, articulating and reading above grade level. We still have a lot of issues, but he’s come a long way in 3 years! His teacher and I this year even discussed medication and whether or not he needed it to function and she said he needed some extra attention but she didn’t want to do that to him, so she’s found other methods of getting him to finish his work.

          Also, I voted yesterday without talking to my husband about it before I left. We ended up voting exactly the same, but it was just coincidence. :smile:

    3. I know too many women like Zsuzsanna. I think back to some of the smart, beautiful, talented, kind fundie girls I grow up with, many were raised by their families and church to be nothing but wives and mothers. No talk or college, career or travel. I would try to reason with them to dream big. Kim (not her real name) dreamed of visiting Paris. I told Kim to go to college and see the world. She said no, travel was frivolous. Plus she claimed she would get the travel the world during the millennial reign of Christ. When Kim was 17 got was engaged to her 24 year old boyfriend. What kind of grown man dates a high school girl I thought? But I was told it was okay, because it was a junior pastor at a local church and made good money on the side in the home repair business. Kim was married a week after high school graduation and gave birth to her first child nine months later. Kim ended up having nine children. Two of her pregnancies almost killed her. She husband was told that another pregnancy could kill her. But he got her pregnant again. None of Kim’s three adult children have gone to college (All were home schooled). The two oldest 21 and 19 are already married. The oldest son works with his father. The oldest daughter married someone who works part time for her father, and she is pregnant. (Soon Kim will be a 42 year old grandmother and Kim has a 3 year old son) At least the third child is training for a career as a hair stylist.
      I saw Kim a few weeks ago. She seems sad and old for her age. I don’t know whether to be angry or depressed.

      1. Truth.

        One thing I can say about being single until late in life (well, late for Fundies) is that was my time to grow up and figure things out. Not to say that stops once someone puts a ring on it, but it’s easier when you’re still flying solo.

        My only regret is that I wish I could have learned that God’s will for my life wasn’t a man much sooner so I could really have made the most of my single years. Being able to focus on education, career, and ministry when time for each was necessary would have been a lot easier, and I would have been more effective much earlier on all fronts.

  17. I have heard from the IFB pulpit the old “I’m not telling you who to vote for….” but then hearing for 20 minutes how evil every Democrat was :roll:

    Whenever I would get asked by a true fundy who I voted for (probably trying to narc out the liberals :grin: ) I always told them what my mom (non-fundy) would say; “there’s a reason you pull a curtain behind you”. IOW it’s none of you business.

    1. TOTALLY had that too. Especially what you said, the “I’m not telling you who to vote for…”, but then either bashing every Democrat on the face of the planet, or going on about “Voting on your Christian values!!!!” (cue Phil Davison yelling style). Yeah…

      I’m quite the opposite of you actually. I enjoy telling people who I voted for! Just to see their reactions. (And by saying that as an ex-fundy, you can only imagine!)

      1. There’s an old joke on that theme.
        A minister says to his congregation;
        I won’t tell you who I’m voting for but if the Conservatives get in the hymn will be “Oh God our help in ages past”, if Labour get in the hymn will be “Now thank we all our God” and if the Liberal Demoncrats get in we will sing “God moves in mysterious ways”

    2. That’s why I dumped going to the main service at the last Baptist church I attended. It was during the 2008 election and it got so horrible and ugly I couldn’t stand it. No real preaching, just blasting all the Democrat candidates. (And there were black families in the congregation; one of the older kids wore an Obama t-shirt. I wondered how can they stand coming here?)

    3. A local Conservative (the Conservative party, in Canada – actually closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, nowadays, e.g. closing legal loopholes so that gay marriages performed in Canada are now more easily recognisable in other jurisdictions) attended our church one Sunday, and the pastor made him stand up and us give him a round of applause for his doing God’s work in the government.
      Apparently God’s work involves lowering pensions, cutting arts programs, removing a whack of funding for mental health and general health services, and making it harder for refugees to escape torture. Huh. Well, mysterious ways! ( :roll: )
      Anyway, yeah. That was about 8 years ago, thank goodness. Our new church doesn’t mention politics. Thank Heavens. If they do I might get up and walk out.
      The painful part, really, is that back when the forcible standing ovation for the Conservative occurred, I was happy. I thought he was ‘doing God’s work’ – that was at a time the pastor also had isntructed us to pray against homosexual marriage, etc., and the Conservatives were against homosexual marriage.

  18. I remember my fundy ‘history’ ‘professor’ at ‘collage’ wistfully going on about how great it would be if less people could vote. All the while wearing his American flag tie and pin. :???:

    At the same time he held that all those who don’t or can’t vote should not be allowed to talk about politics – like not be allowed, as in have their freedom of speech privileges revoked in that aria.

    1. Not surprised at all. Probably thought of himself as a great constitutional scholar and supporter, (except for all those problems, obv)

  19. I personally think that fewer people should be allowed to vote, because the vast majority of people wouldn’t know what’s really good for them even if it bit them on the ear. For this, I am shunned by many as being too “elitist”. I’m not an elitist, I’m just calling for some common sense…
    However, to keep this OT, I wouldn’t automatically cut a specific gender/ethnic/religious group.

    1. I sometimes think there should be a test you have to pass. If you fail, you take classes and can try again.

      I mean, people should know what a congresscritter or whatever actually *DOES* before voting for them….and Yes, I have had to explain to some people what congress, senate, Governor, etc actually do *headdesk*

      Don’t get me started on the lack of understanding and misinformation on the actual issues…

  20. When I was at HAC the dean of women, Jobeth Hooker, said that women shouldn’t have campaigned for the right to vote. She also said that since it was over and we already had the right, we should take advantage of it.

  21. Excellent, Darrell! I can’t even talk to my formerly fundy mother about voting. When I ask her about her political leanings, she says she has to ask my dad about who she should like. UGH!

  22. I am not sure if you are saying that people should vote in a more informed manner, or vote in a particular way (with your worldview).

    Information won’t produce common sense in many people, and the implementation of legislating a worldview hasn’t historically gone well.

    The alternative would be that people had to prove somehow that they had common sense to qualify. That sounds tricky. Even a test of public service demonstrates only motivation or at best loyalty – not the wisdom to know what is best for all those around them.

    I am not trying to bash you – I’m just wondering how this would go.

    1. Vote in an informed manner and not just because the guy looks good in a TV spot or was the last guy they saw a sign for before they got to the voting place.

  23. I voted today. I really didn’t want to vote today–in fact I wasn’t really sure I remembered where the polling place was. But I did vote. I am quite certain that it was a very different vote than my husband’s vote. Wonder if I’ll be reliving this day and seeing that ballot again at the Judgment Seat of Christ???

  24. My polling place just happens to be my old church: Faith Baptist in Taylors, SC. Two years ago I took great delight in wearing an Obama button while standing in that long line of fundy conservatives, many of whom I knew well. If looks could kill! I’m sure they’ve given me up to a reprobate mind.

    1. Yes, my vote for Mr. Obama was the most liberating vote in my voting career because I wasn’t “encouraged” from any pulpit to vote in against my conscience. It may have not been the BEST choice, but, it was MY choice.

    2. I’m a little surprised you weren’t asked to remove it. IME (or maybe this is just how WI does things) poll workers ask anyone wearing a campaign button (of any party) to remove it before going into the polls. Something about last minute campaigning, IIRC and the fact that you’re telling people who you’re voting for (ballots are supposed to be secret).

      1. Yeah, the WWE had to go to court in Connecticut to allow their fans to wear WWE t shirts/etc while voting. Since Linda McMahon was so closely associated w/ WWE. They were allowed. They probably should’ve spent more time convincing WWE fans to vote than worrying about whether they could wear WWE t shirts though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>