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.

  • Xhieron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  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.