magnet
5678
I don’t know, maybe I am? I certainly don’t agree with that. But voluntary submission of wife to husband is found not only in mainstream Christianity but mainstream Islam. The latter is linked to voluntarily wearing a hijab, which most liberals defend. So it’s hard for me to suddenly find cause for alarm.
Now, involuntary submission of wife to husband is quite another matter, but I don’t see evidence of that here.
One might reasonably argue that being raised in a cult that tells you not just that you’re not allowed to say no, but that it is right and proper in the eyes of god to submit regardless of your feelings on the matter doesn’t exactly make it less rapey, it just makes it systemic.
It used to be matter of law that husbands could never be legally accused of raping their spouse. Another way of saying that is to say it was a mainstream view. The fact that it was a mainstream view didn’t make it more right or less objectionable.
magnet
5681
That’s true, it was the mainstream view, it was the law, and it is objectionable.
On the other hand, questioning a judicial candidate at the time about that law would have been pointless. Because it was the law, and it was the mainstream view.
Similarly, I find the death penalty highly objectionable but it is the law and it currently has wide mainstream support. I would not expect or even want a candidate to be grilled over that issue.
It sounds like an example of a culture that I may or may not share, but that is a reasonable way of organizing one’s life. That’s the problem with the Guardian article, for as “just the facts” as it is, the tenor is actually “look at the behavior of these strange animals… we don’t know what exactly they’re doing in that jungle but doesn’t it freak you out a bit?” But actually they’re just human beings doing boring things that aren’t what you’re used to.
For example, the article points out that members of the People of Praise donate 5% of their income to the group, with seemingly no recognition that this is precisely in line with Church doctrine on tithing: 5% to the Church through your local parish, and 5% to other causes of your choice.
I don’t know the jurisprudence on it, but Article VI’s religious test clause seems to me on a basic reading to forbid a senator doing what Shivax suggested and saying “There are enough Catholics on the court.” It’s a separate issue if someone wants to evaluate a nominee on their cultural practices adjacent to religion. In the case of Barrett, my only argument is that there’s quite a bit of ado about nothing. And at a certain point it starts to look like simple bigotry, whether it’s constitutional or not.
I haven’t seen this. Does it come from a credible source regarding People of Praise, or is it just someone asserting what they believe “be submissive to your husband” means, like the Guardian writer who assumed it meant “women do the housework”?
I guess I disagree. If there are manifestly unjust laws on the books, and I’m exercising my constitutional duty of advice and consent, I want to know what the nominee thinks of those laws. What else could I be advising on or consenting to?
magnet
5684
I guess I see things more tactically! I don’t want to give a political opponent the opportunity to build support by forcing her to defend a popular position.
Since magnet brings up capital punishment, I’ll just say that this could be an actually illuminating way to approach all these how-does-religion-impact-jurisprudence questions with a Catholic nominee. Catholic doctrine is clear that in a country with modern law enforcement capacities the practice of capital punishment is a grave evil. Ask a Catholic judicial nominee how they would handle cases of capital punishment, when it is the law of the land.
You might be right that it would be unwise. I’m just saying that it is neither impermissible nor bigoted to have the questions.
Here is an example:
Coral Anika Theill joined People of Praise’s branch in Corvallis, Ore., in 1979, when she was a 24-year-old mother of infant twins. She said women were expected to live in “total submission” not only to their husbands, but also the other male “heads” within the group.
When she told her husband she wanted to wait to have more children, Theill said, he accompanied her to gynecological appointments to ensure she couldn’t get birth control.
“I was basically treated like a brood mare,” she said. During her 20-year marriage, Theill had eight children from 11 pregnancies.
…and…
Lisa Williams said her parents joined the Minnesota branch of People of Praise in the late 1970s, when she was a fourth-grader.
“I remember my mother saying a wife could never deny sex to her husband, because it was his right and her duty,” said Williams, 56. “Sex is not for pleasure. It’s for as many babies as God chooses to give you. … Women had to be obedient. They had to be subservient.”
Maybe these accounts aren’t true. Maybe they’re exaggerated, or atypical isolated perversions of a more benign philosophy. Probably there is a continuum of adherence across the group. But wondering about it, asking about it, isn’t necessarily absurd or bigoted.
magnet
5688
That account raises two legal questions that are independent of religion:
-
Do you think adult women should have unhindered access to birth control?
-
Do you think adult women should be free to enter relationships in which they are not treated fairly?
I think the first is a great question. But I think the second is kind of patronizing and dumb.
Thanks for the link! That’s an article that gives a lot better context than the Guardian one, and better sourcing of those who are critical of People of Praise.
For those who don’t know, “Sex is not for pleasure” is very explicitly NOT Catholic doctrine, so it leads one to wonder what members of People of Praise, at least at that branch, are taught or have convinced themselves of. John Paul II wrote extensively on sexual ethics and in several places effectively said, “Dudes! If you’re having an orgasm and your wife isn’t, you’re doing it wrong!”
If you ignore the children in the equation, sure. But why do that?
Yes, this is what I have been saying. Doctrines like women should be subservient to their husbands seem to lead inevitably to abuse, even if you take the charitable view that they are in some indescribable way well-intentioned.
I think we might have a tendency to call out this doctrine particularly because it’s decidedly contrary to certain values in our modern culture. But maybe in actuality nearly any doctrine–formally religious or otherwise, no matter how salutary–can be twisted to the purpose of control.
Maybe the problem is actually best described in a different doctrine, that of the fallen world and original sin? :)
Oh, come on. What’s the rational argument for women should be subservient to their husbands? Why is rejection of it a cultural value?
In any event, can we agree that it’s hardly crazy or bigoted to have questions about People of Praise or how deeply Barrett buys into their philosophy?
magnet
5694
No more crazy or bigoted than having questions about how deeply Rep Omar buys into Islam.
Objection, the two questions are not the same. If you want to nominate Omar to the court, and then find out she’s a Salafist, and then ask her if she believes it should be e.g. illegal for women to drive, I think that question is perfectly fair.
magnet
5696
Yes, “Should it be illegal for women to drive?” is fair to ask anyone.
antlers
5697
Exactly. And lets not forget that a People of Praise offshoot already has an adherent on the court, in Thomas. As I said earlier, it looks like there’s a religious test being applied, in that if you are People of Praise you are much more likely than the average person to be nominated to a Supreme Court slot.
