Is Christianity responsible for denying women's rights?

[Flail]

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country. No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office. Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country.

A pity, that.

No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office.

And if you'll hush about it, maybe they won't wanna :joker:

Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Christianity arrived in, and has hitherforehence been a male-dominant culture, so this is not surprising (not that you say otherwise).

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

I think there's more than just religion at play, but agree current Christian thinking seems to be a bit more enlightened than what I gather from Islam.

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

At least partly. I propose one at least small bit of evidence here would be the fact that presidential 'contender' Michelle Bachmann was asked about whether she'd be "submissive" to her husband if she were elected, a question asked of no other candidate regarding their female spouses.

[Flail]

From the OP:

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country.

A pity, that.

No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office.

And if you'll hush about it, maybe they won't wanna :joker:

Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Christianity arrived in, and has hitherforehence been a male-dominant culture, so this is not surprising (not that you say otherwise).

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

I think there's more than just religion at play, but agree current Christian thinking seems to be a bit more enlightened than what I gather from Islam.

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

At least partly. I propose one at least small bit of evidence here would be the fact that presidential 'contender' Michelle Bachmann was asked about whether she'd be "submissive" to her husband if she were elected, a question asked of no other candidate regarding their female spouses.

Although we have come a long way with gender discrimination,as with all discrimination, we still have work to do.

It is no longer necessary to have a penis to gain high office. Oddly however, it remains a requirement for priesthood.

We voted Obama in to prove we weren't racist.
Now we need to vote him out to prove we're not idiots.

[notachance]

We voted Obama in to prove we weren't racist.
Now we need to vote him out to prove we're not idiots.

To answer your op, yes. At least partially. There may be other social factors causing the treatment of women as second class citizens, but none more strong than the clear and inescapable Biblical edicts of women's intrinsic inferiority.

Regarding your remark about Obama:

I am just as disappointed as you with Obama's monumental failure as a President, and the way he broke virtually every single promise relating to his progressive agenda.

But who do you suggest we replace him with? Bachmann? Perry?

I'll grant you that they are probably more honest. They tell you straight up that their intention is to raise taxes on the bottom 50% while lowering them on the top 1%, and they tell you straight up they want to abolish social security, medicaid and medicare.

They tell you straight up that they want to abolish every single social system that differentiates us from countries like the Ivory Coast.

Whereas Obama promises one thing and then does the opposite.

Is that a good reason to vote for Perry or Bachmann rather than Obama?

As detrimental as Obama's corporatist policies are (and as detrimental as some of Clinton's were), wouldn't you agree that the damage that they did to the country is NOTHING compared to what Bush did?

When a democrat is in power things get worse slowly.

When a republican is in power things get worse fast.

And people are tricked by Republican v Democrat the dog and pony show, and think things will get better with the next President.

If you were proposing that we march in the street in a gigantic movement of social protest demanding campaign finance reform across the board and and other major changes in the system, I'd be there with you.

But if you think changing one President with an even more radically pro-top-1% loon, is going to cause any kind of systemic improvement, then you're delusional or uninformed.

[Flail]

notachance wrote:

Regarding your remark about Obama:

I am just as disappointed as you with Obama's monumental failure as a President, and the way he broke virtually every single promise relating to his progressive agenda.

But who do you suggest we replace him with? Bachmann? Perry?

I'll grant you that they are probably more honest. They tell you straight up that their intention is to raise taxes on the bottom 50% while lowering them on the top 1%, and they tell you straight up they want to abolish social security, medicaid and medicare.

They tell you straight up that they want to abolish every single social system that differentiates us from countries like the Ivory Coast.

We need a third party. We need smaller government. We need to rid ourselves of dependence on the nanny state and start looking out for each other. The bottom 50% pays zero tax. They need to have a stake in the game. The top 10% pays 70% of the tax. They are the job creators, the employers. We need them. I see few candidates thus far who have any potential to break the grip of Washington on the private sector. We certainly do not need religious bigots like Bachman or Perry. Thankfully, Huckleberry isn't running. Bush was a disaster primarily because he failed to veto the spending of the democrat controlled legislature the last two years of his tenure. Then Obama continued the spending glut his first two years when democrats controlled all three branches of government. What a freaking mess. IMO, Obama will prove to be the worst President in our countries history, taking that moniker off of the likes of Bush and Carter. The best option I see is Hillary and I don't think she is running. For now I'm on the side of anyone but Obama. We've had enough. We need a woman president. It's way past time.

[forumwarrior]

No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office.

praise the lord for that, brother. the last thing we need is a female commander in chief. it amazes the hell out of me that anybody takes people like sarah palin and michelle bachman seriously. all theyre doing is distracting from the REAL candidates.

as far as the question. no. christianity has nothing to do with any "shameful" history of womens rights.

first of all, there is nothing shameful about the united states treatment of women.

second of all. if we were a nation of godless heathen instead of the christian nation that we are (yes, were a christian nation) women would have still been subjugated. its nature. MEN have ruled the world so long as there has been a world.

i find nothing shameful about that. nothing christian about that either.

[Question Everything]

if we were a nation of godless heathen instead of the christian nation that we are (yes, were a christian nation)...

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

Article 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, " as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, " and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Maybe you were referring to Colonial days, like when we had the Salem witch trials?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office.

praise the lord for that, brother. the last thing we need is a female commander in chief. it amazes the hell out of me that anybody takes people like sarah palin and michelle bachman seriously. all theyre doing is distracting from the REAL candidates.

While I wouldn't be praisin' the lord about the lack of viable female candidates, I must admit to disdain for them two.

as far as the question. no. christianity has nothing to do with any "shameful" history of womens rights.

first of all, there is nothing shameful about the united states treatment of women.

One wonders what Susan B Anthony may have to allow here.

second of all. if we were a nation of godless heathen instead of the christian nation that we are (yes, were a christian nation) women would have still been subjugated.
...

That we are a "christian nation" is open to individual interpretation.

its nature. MEN have ruled the world so long as there has been a world.

Yet we gotta take out the trash.

i find nothing shameful about that. nothing christian about that either.

Agreed. I don't think you're shamed about any of your notions here, but I do find it typically Christian of you to speak in such a fashion.

[100%atheist]

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

No, I don't think it makes sense to put blame on Christianity. Religions were always used to justify injustice, racism, discrimination. Christianity is no exception.

[SomePunk]

The political history of the United States includes relatively few women compared to the number of men. Women did not have the right to vote for the first 140 years of our existence as a country. No woman has ever held the office of President or Vice President and very few have served in high office. Women's history as leaders in Christianity is similarly deficient.

Often we hear criticisms of Islam for treating women as second class citizens. Is Christianity the same, having advanced further to combat religious discrimination against women by reason of simply getting an earlier start?

Question for debate: Is Christianity responsible for the shameful history of women's rights in America?

No, there have been a lot of women throughout history in America who have made remarkable achievements and are well known today. Actually, show me a reference in a the bible, new testament, that scorns, or belittles women.