- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- politics@lemmy.world
Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.
Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or ācrueltyā (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: āEven if you could prove you had been hit, that didnāt necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,ā saidĀ Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.
Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signedĀ the nationās first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving theyād been wronged. The move was a recognition that āpeople were going to get out of marriages,ā Zug said, and gave them a way to do that withoutĀ resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates ofĀ domestic violence and spousal murderĀ began to drop as people ā especially women ā gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.
Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing:Ā Conservative commentatorsĀ andĀ lawmakersĀ are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example,Ā introduced a billĀ in January to ban his stateās version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to itsĀ 2022 platformĀ (the plank is preserved inĀ the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) andĀ House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development SecretaryĀ Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.
Man - I know most folks feel the best thing to do is get rid of religion all together - but at this stage Iād settle for and support a new, loud, and active Christian sect denouncing xtian radicals and the churches that support them as Satanic corruptions.
Believe Old Testament and its edicts mean a damn practical thing in todayās world? Satan.
Insisting on not rendering unto Caesar what is Caesarās? Satan.
Treating your fellow humans as lesser for anything whatsoever? Satan.
Corrupting Bible verses to justify creating suffering and not rendering aid to anyone who needs it? 100% Satan.
Forcing means to reduce anyoneās capacity to exercise free will, the one key thing their creator deity granted all humans? Sounds like Satan to me.
And so on. I realize this is deeply naive. But part of the reason I like The Louvin Brotherās song Satan is Real is whenever I hear the guyās testimony on Satan, I think about about people in the offending churches:
I grew selfish, and un-neighbourly
My friends turned against me
And finally, my home was broken apart
The Louvin Brothers themselves would likely vehemently disagree, but - does this sound like anyone you know?
/end of vaguely spiritualist rant.
Personally I think it says everything that the Abrahamic version of the Theft of Fire leads to the idea that we should hate and denounce the thief rather than see him as responsible for us being raised above essentially being animals. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is analogous to Prometheus, MÄtariÅvan, Amirani, Pkharmat, Grandmother Spider, etc.
I also find it interesting that the Theft of Fire is a nearly universal myth (as close as anything gets) - a divine or semi-divine being (often but not always a trickster-type) taking a symbol (often a fire, in the Torah a fruit) representing knowledge against the will of those in power and giving it to man, thus leading to the ability of man to be free to create civilization.
Yeah, while I get the general idea of ābeware of the hubris brought about by technologyā, but the message from the bible way oversteers into general ignorance and so on. There is a real anti-Promethean streak within this country anyway, and I attribute a lot of that to xtians.
Iād be all for trying to up our game in the instruction of critical thinking and spotting logical fallacies. I think if religion were to be removed, it might just be supplanted by something just as stupid (for example: the antivax/āstop the stealā/antimask/qanon/pizzagate memeplex) instead of being supplanted by reason.