The misogyny of right-wing religionist

Kirsten Powers ‘Hijacks’ Hannity Panel To Confront Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson About His ‘Misogynist’ Sermons

“I didn’t know I was going to be sitting here” with Peterson, Powers said. She then confronted him, saying, “You said women are creating a shameless society, and that they are destroying the family, and they shouldn’t be put in powerful businesses. Address that.”

“Most Americans know that liberal women are destroying the family, they hate men, they hate society,” Peterson responded. Powers replied, “That is absolutely false,”

Powers went on: “You are a pastor distorting God’s word for misogyny. What do you mean — when you say women —when you say you leave a woman alone in charge a family and she destroys the family?”

Peterson disagreed. “No, I have a responsibility to tell the truth,” he said. “You are on the side of lies, why shouldn’t I be on the side of truth? The truth is going to make us free. [...] I tell the truth.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kirsten-powe ... ediaite%29

This is the sort of crap that comes from the far right-wing religionist. Even as a conservative I find this pastors argument to be worthless. I don't think politics figures in much with failed families, failed marriages and failed relationships. There are butt holes on all sides of the aisle and liberals have no monopoly on screwing up families.

One of my big issues with the Bible & the Koran is the sexism. Maybe God needs to add some extra chapters to these books to address this.

FredHayek wrote: One of my big issues with the Bible & the Koran is the sexism. Maybe God needs to add some extra chapters to these books to address this.

You mean maybe some men need to revise or write some new chapters to the scriptures?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

FredHayek wrote: One of my big issues with the Bible & the Koran is the sexism. Maybe God needs to add some extra chapters to these books to address this.

You mean maybe some men need to revise or write some new chapters to the scriptures?

Or have women write the holy books next time?

Don't even think of changing something written by the Founding Fathers!

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I don't think politics figures in much with failed families, failed marriages and failed relationships. There are butt holes on all sides of the aisle and liberals have no monopoly on screwing up families.

No, but "progressive" policies sure do. Before LBJ launched his "Great Society" with its companion "War on Poverty", the illegitimate birth rate was much lower than it is today and a significantly larger percentage of poor families had two parents in them - despite a significantly smaller access to contraception than is available today. The "War on Poverty", like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror", has done little to alter the circumstances which the "wars" were declared to address.

The "Welfare State" is what is screwing up families and not holding those who are receiving our generous support accountable is accelerating and magnifying the problem. No one who failed to secure a HS diploma or a GED should be eligible for welfare subsidies unless they are making progress towards securing that vital achievement or are somehow disabled to the point where they are incapable of securing it. If you are not willing to make the minimal effort necessary to avail yourself of the free education which the rest of the populace provides the opportunity for you to have, you deserve no further support from them. Every child in a supported home who drops out of school before securing their diploma should result in the family subsidy being reduced as well. If you are unable to hold onto a job due to your addictions, then your willingness to address that affliction should be an important factor in your receiving assistance from your fellow citizens to help you take care of your responsibilities. If you are unwilling to address your afflictions, you should not expect that the rest of us are going to make your life easier. Don't expect us to help you keep your family together if you are not willing to do the hard work of becoming a productive member of the society and setting that as an example for your children. The fruits of others efforts taken from them for your benefit should come with some very concrete expectations that everything that can be done to lessen their burden now and in the future is being done. Welfare should not be an exception to the rule that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Speaking of misogynistic right-wing religionists...... our resident MRWR appears.... :rofl

PrintSmith wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: I don't think politics figures in much with failed families, failed marriages and failed relationships. There are butt holes on all sides of the aisle and liberals have no monopoly on screwing up families.

No, but "progressive" policies sure do. Before LBJ launched his "Great Society" with its companion "War on Poverty", the illegitimate birth rate was much lower than it is today and a significantly larger percentage of poor families had two parents in them - despite a significantly smaller access to contraception than is available today. The "War on Poverty", like the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror", has done little to alter the circumstances which the "wars" were declared to address.

The "Welfare State" is what is screwing up families and not holding those who are receiving our generous support accountable is accelerating and magnifying the problem. No one who failed to secure a HS diploma or a GED should be eligible for welfare subsidies unless they are making progress towards securing that vital achievement or are somehow disabled to the point where they are incapable of securing it. If you are not willing to make the minimal effort necessary to avail yourself of the free education which the rest of the populace provides the opportunity for you to have, you deserve no further support from them. Every child in a supported home who drops out of school before securing their diploma should result in the family subsidy being reduced as well. If you are unable to hold onto a job due to your addictions, then your willingness to address that affliction should be an important factor in your receiving assistance from your fellow citizens to help you take care of your responsibilities. If you are unwilling to address your afflictions, you should not expect that the rest of us are going to make your life easier. Don't expect us to help you keep your family together if you are not willing to do the hard work of becoming a productive member of the society and setting that as an example for your children. The fruits of others efforts taken from them for your benefit should come with some very concrete expectations that everything that can be done to lessen their burden now and in the future is being done. Welfare should not be an exception to the rule that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Thank you for a lot of nothing. I was talking about right wing religious figures who wants to use scripture and politics to diminish woman. If you read CLOSELY the statements by the minister, his statements could refer to ANY WOMAN. Powers quoted one of his statements "“You said women are creating a shameless society, and that they are destroying the family, and they shouldn’t be put in powerful businesses." That's plain and simple, and your long diatribe has nothing to do with that simple statement.

Do you agree with that thought from the minister "“You said women are creating a shameless society, and that they are destroying the family, and they shouldn’t be put in powerful businesses." ?????

And I don't want a long Sjewett styled answer about states rights and founding fathers.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: And I don't want a long Sjewett styled answer about states rights and founding fathers.

Oh come on, PS can't say hello without explaining in minute detail how the founding fathers felt about the word, and referencing the sovereign states reaction to the word.

I think "progressive" politics and policies have a lot to do with failed families - which was why I quoted the portion of your post that I was responding to. It is not women who are responsible for failed families, it is the "progressive" laws and policies that are responsible in large part for the state of families in our union. The problem of failed families is rooted in "progressive" policies which affect women and subjugate them to a greater degree to the federal government. These "progressive" policies have resulted in a higher illegitimate birth rate and fewer two parent homes, both of which impact women to a greater degree than their male counterparts and screw up families. Liberals may not have a monopoly on screwing up families, but their political policies are a major contributing factor to what screws families up.

I did not take issue with your remarks regarding the pastor, nor did I indicate any support for his ruminations on the matter - both of which should indicate that I do not share his thoughts on the matter. I did take issue with your remarks that you didn't think politics figured much into failed families, which is why I extracted those remarks and responded to them and noted that the politics of the "progressives" had contributed significantly to the failure of families, particularly poor families. See how that works? I believe that women are an important and valuable part of every aspect of our society and always have been. I do not think that they play a larger, or a smaller, role in promulgating a "shameless society" or "destroying families" than their male counterparts and I believe that they make important contributions to helping powerful businesses operate in an ethical, moral and productive environment. Satisfied?