this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
684 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2993 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

State representative Ashley Aune is trying to fight it, but doesn’t have high hopes.

Something you might have picked up on over the last several weeks/years/centuries is that there are a disturbing number of people in power who will go to great lengths to control women in America. Not convinced? Thinking of citing the fact that in some countries, women are stoned to death (as though that makes what happens here okay)? Then we’d like to make you aware of a law in Missouri that says pregnant women cannot get a divorce finalized if they’re pregnant—even if said pregnant people are victims of domestic violence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xhieron@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Possibly related note: Jesus's rules on divorce do not permit a woman to leave an abusive marriage.

Citation needed por favor.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sermon on the Mount. It is right there in Matthew. Most famous speech he supposedly gave.

If you are curious both it and the Sermon on the plain probably came from the same document that is lost to us.

[–] xhieron@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Matthew 5? Yeah, it doesn't say that.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

[–] xhieron@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sure. I've read it. You may want to take a look into what divorce and adultery meant in First Century Judea.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Not sure why I would considering that the man who wrote that gospel wasn't from there and wasn't of that religious group. Especially considering that "look at the context" is something only done by non-religious who haven't yet finished cutting ties with their birth religion and is never a demand that the religious honor.

But yeah go right ahead. Explain how divorce and adultery really means exactly what you want it to me in "context".

[–] xhieron@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, 0 for 2 (or 3--you're probably wrong about the author of Matthew too). Some folks are deeply religious and care a great deal about context and history, but something tells me you already know that.

The books are deeply flawed, but if you want to criticize them, you have to bother to read and understand them first. Making shit up because you have a chip on your shoulder doesn't advance your position. All it does is prove the assumption of religious people, wise and ignorant alike, that you will readily lie if it serves your aim to paint their faith in a negative light.

When you engage in bad faith, you shouldn't be alarmed when someone calls you on it, and it should come as no shock that people aren't going to want to spend time correcting your errors.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah yeah I suck, get in line and take a number.

Noticed that can't actually find a way to make the word divorce not be divorce and the word adultery not be adultery? A three paragraph rant about how much I suck with zero reference to the text or the supposed context of the text.