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.

  • darth_tiktaalik@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

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

    Depending on which gospel you’re reading a man may either leave an adulterous wife(Matthew)or not under any circumstances(mark, luke).

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a bit annoying that they wrote it up so literally decades after he was dead.

      Dude was also allegedly regularly referring to death and the afterlife using marriage metaphors of bridegrooms and bridal suites.

      But yeah, the idea divorce is impossible had to do with actual marriage and not the whole ‘dying’ part.

      (Though I suppose the sect that believed a dead body came back as opposed to the sects that denied physical resurrection would have preferred interpreting it as referring to actual marriage and not death…)

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s a bit annoying that they wrote it up so literally decades after he was dead.

        It took a while to create a myth from scratch. Go read the early Batman and Superman comics, you can see how they struggled. In any case the restricted divorce rules probably came from Paul and the author of Mark’s pathetic attempts to read the OT Song of songs and Zeke 29.

        • kromem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          How do you think Song of Songs or Ezekiel 29 relate to the divorce prohibition?

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

            The erotica was reimagined and partially rewritten as an analogy for the relationship between Israel and God. In that context the idea of divorce becomes a seperation from God. Paul is not a fan of divorce unless of course the partner wasn’t a member of the church i.e. they were commiting adultery against God. He repurposed baptism to make it part of the marriage to Christ which wasn’t a big leap since Judaism already had a ritual like baptism prior to getting married. Then he flattened humanity, telling people that all were equally the same to the son of god making it acceptable for higher class, lower class, males, slaves, and all ethnic groups to be married to the same person.

            All these vague ideas merged later when the Gospel writers needed to fill in the plot.

    • Xhieron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 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
        ·
        8 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.