Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: A Children’s Story Previous entry: Another ad FAIL from NOM, this time in New Hampshire

A ‘Christian’ sermon on the role of women - ‘just shut up’

Blogenfreude sent this link to me, and said “thought you might have some fun w/it.” When I clicked over and read this screed by Evangelist Phil Kidd, I thought it was a parody of one of the generally batsh*t preachers who send me random, bible-beating emails like Pastor Billy Ball of Faith Baptist Church in Primrose, Georgia. But it appears this guy is the real deal.

Kidd makes it clear where he stands on the role of women in the church right at the top, with “Hey Lady Shut up!”:

The Bible says everything that has breath has a right to praise the Lord. But there are some times when the Scripture commands woman to shut up!

First, they are commanded to shut up concerning the Authority of the Church. I Timothy 2:12 tells us that a woman is not to usurp authority over the man. God never has called a woman to preach. I know some “mainline” churches are ordaining woman to pastor their churches. Even radio and television are now promoting female pastor’s. What a sad day, seeing woman open the bible and expound the scriptures. Eve, in the Garden of Eden, in a perfect surrounding could not even quote on verse correct. I sure would not trust a woman to expound truth in this sin cursed mess we live in. Some sorry Baptist Churches are now letting woman teach men and boys classes. No wonder America has turned “Sodomite”. Too many young men have had too many woman as their voice of authority.

Second, they are commanded to shut up concerning the Administration of the Church. Usually when I start dealing with the business of leadership in the church most pastor’s bow their heads. Why? Because Pastor’s all across this this land are allowing woman to hold positions that they have no right to hold. It makes me sick to watch a woman stand on a platform and lead a choir with men in it, or even worse to see a woman lead the whole congregation! Singing is an important part of the worship service. This office is not a calling, but it should be led by a man with leadership ability.

...Third, women are commanded to shut up concerning the Apparel of the Church. 11 Timothy 2:9 commands the woman to dress in modest apparel. I have personally seen that in a large percentage of churches, the long tongued, rebellious, bobbed-haired, preacher-hating, pants-wearing, liberal-minded women have determined the standard of dress for the church. The cowardly preacher is afraid to cross this group. He knows if he does, these loud-mouthed women will take their weak husbands and go to another church. Sadly, most woman pull their hair, grit their teeth, and even yell back when the preacher deals with modest dress. Some will even get mad just reading this article. I say to you, SHUT UP!

Um. Do you think he has issues? What’s with the “long tongued”?! Kidd does have a web site, btw, Fighting the Good Fight of Faith, that has to be seen to believe. Kidd says his “ministry has extended into tent revivals, camp meetings, church revivals, and youth camps all across The United States and other countries” but I haven’t heard of the guy; perhaps he’s a third or fourth stringer looking to work his way up the fundie charts.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 11:39 AM • (87) Comments

Here’s the question for me, as a non-believer:

Is this a legitimate reading of the Bible?  It’s sort of become PC to act as though every religion really endorses moderate values, but in some cases, it’s starting to seem like a stretch.  The Bible (and the Torah, and the Koran, and the Book of Mormon) makes some pretty hateful claims, and while it’s certainly an option to just ignore those things, it’s hard to see exactly how to tie it all back together then.

Comment #1: Billingham  on  05/10  at  11:56 AM

It would increase this guy’s credibility if he could learn to use apostrophes correctly. Also, verbs.

Comment #2: F. McGee  on  05/10  at  12:00 PM

Bobbed-haired is a rather 1920’s insult.  Does it even have a meaning today?  Is the guy nearing 110?  I can’t imagine this as in insult ringing true with many under let’s say 90.

I’m don’t consider myself a Biblcal scholar, but I was still surprised to hear the Bible was already written when Adam and Eve were in the supposed garden.  Seems rather like objecting because Dante couldn’t quote Hemmingway.

Comment #3: drachonfire  on  05/10  at  12:04 PM

I feel kind of sorry for this guy.  He’s raging on one hand that churches are losing members, then on the other hand berating women who stay in the church.  Dude; you can’t have it both ways- no self-respecting woman is going to stay in a place where she’s not welcome.  You tell women this a) you’re cutting of leadership talent, b) you’re pissing off the “hot dish ladies”* and c) you’re going to lose members. 

*For those of you outside the midwest (or possibly Lutheran churches) the “hot dish ladies” are the ladies that make sure the bake sales are stocked and running, running all the committees, and making sure there’s enough hot dish for everyone at potlucks.  They’re the people making the place a welcoming environment, basically.

Comment #4: Antigone  on  05/10  at  12:08 PM

My mom has a church pamphlet from the 20s or 30s that’s all about the evils of bobbed hair.  And history has shown that bobbed hair was the gateway drug of women’s liberation.  Along with the voting, a right to initiate divorce, income, driving automobiles, the Pill, legal rights, legal precedents, and a whole lot of elbow grease, everything went to hell with bobbed hair.  But it all came from a selfish desire not to have long hair.

I’m quite surprised at what is not included in the sermon.  Surely jazz has something to do with it all, too.  If only those white men in blackface hadn’t made it so popular.  I’m also quite surprised the sermon doesn’t have a single mention of the Spanish.

Comment #5: 3letterjon  on  05/10  at  12:15 PM

Of course we’re all Sodomites!  Women in teaching positions teach boys to open their orifices!  Me?  I was tought by men.  My sphincter is tight!

Thank GOD for people (Men!) like Phil Kidd.  It’s gonna be a good earth for people like us when the rest of you are wiped out by Osama Bin Fucker!

Comment #6: dan the man  on  05/10  at  12:24 PM

Well.  Aside from “felch a dead moose,” I have nothing to say to this shit-spewing douchebag.

Comment #7: Kyra  on  05/10  at  12:26 PM

I’m also quite surprised the sermon doesn’t have a single mention of the Spanish.

Don’t be so naive, 3letterjon…can no one see the true face of the enemy behind this gyno-rebellion?  That dastardly Kaiser and the wily Hun!

Comment #8: Sour Kraut  on  05/10  at  12:28 PM

I’m sure I’m not the only one who noticed that he uses “woman,” singular, throughout, even though he’s ostensibly talking about “women,” plural. Sounds to me like he has someone in particular in mind. My guess is that he has an ex-wife somewhere who raked him through the coals in divorce court.

Comment #9: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  05/10  at  12:49 PM

Antigone - You can see from his website (click “Itinerary”) that this guy doesn’t have a congregation of his own. He goes around guest preaching, and preaching at tent meetings. 

So he doesn’t even have the reality check of a pastor who has to deal with the same parishioners every week and has ongoing job-related responsibilities (e.g., paying the church utilities, making sure the chapel gets vacuumed, writing a NEW sermon [instead of pitching the same shtick to a different congregation, as Kidd does] every week). And it’s no skin off Kidd’s nose if the church ladies (i.e., the only members of the congregation likely to help the pastor out—the ones who hold the bake sales, teach the Sunday school, figure out how to pay the church mortgage, etc.) ditch whatever church he preaches at.

However, you can reasonably assume that if a female pastor invited him to fill in at her church (for a reasonable fee), his opinion of women in the pulpit would change so fast he’d get whiplash.

Comment #10: Molly, NYC  on  05/10  at  01:04 PM

I was just showing this to my brother’s girlfriend, who was raised in some conservative evangelical church in Texas. She agrees-this guy is extreme.

But I daresay he represents millions, if not tens of millions, of whackos.

Where would the Roman Catholic Church be, following “Dr” Kidd’s prescriptions?

(I put scare quotes around his title because his site itself casts some doubt with the very weird typo referring collectively to him and his wife—“Dr’s” it says, which I guess means to say they are both accredited—but insofar as we can take it literally, suggests that actually both are possessed by some other Doctor. My brother’s girlfriend suggested the Doctor might be Satan—“if anyone is going to Hell, it would be this guy”...oh well, maybe The Doctor has recruited them to totally discredit extremist Christianism or something?)

Anyway, the RCC, as clearly misogynistic as it is viewed in its complete “majesty,” would be nowhere without:

Women choir directors

Women teaching “Religion” classes in parochial schools and CCD programs

Nuns, of course, doing the above, running schools, hospitals, research institutes—their entire orders. And teaching children.

Was it here or Slacktivist where someone told the joke about how no one wins an argument with a Jesuit, except a rabbi—and no one wins an argument with the rabbi except the rabbi’s mother? Which is why Catholics revere Mary Mother of God…

OK, all that said the larger point of the misogynistic tendencies of Christianity still stands, at any rate unchallenged. But this Philly the Kidd is an outlier. A significant one perhaps.

And hurtful.

Comment #11: Mark Foxwell  on  05/10  at  01:06 PM

First, they are commanded to shut up concerning the Authority of the Church. I Timothy 2:12 tells us that a woman is not to usurp authority over the man. God never has called a woman to preach.

How does he know? Has he analysed the purpored callings of all women and found that they don’t have the same “Handwriting” as the calls to men? He is picking and choosing an obscure passage and wrapping it in the guise of “Biblical inerrancy” when it’s pretty clearly the prejudice of one person interjecting his human hatred. Even if I was convinced the Bible was divinely inspired, I would not take every single word as God’s Truth.

Comment #12: Judge Moonbox  on  05/10  at  01:09 PM

Wow! That’s a “Happy Mother’s Day” for ya.

Fucker.

Comment #13: history_mom  on  05/10  at  01:39 PM

My guess is that he has an ex-wife somewhere who raked him through the coals in divorce court.

It reminds me of Joseph Smith directing his principle of polygyny to his wife:  God says you’re supposed to let me fuck other women, so shut up!

Comment #14: keshmeshi  on  05/10  at  01:56 PM

the long tongued [. . .] women

Heh.

Nothin’ wrong with a long-tongued woman.

In fact the very first time I . . .

Ahem. Well.

Nevermind.

Comment #15: teac  on  05/10  at  02:00 PM

The website also has various railings against use of any Bibles other than the King James Version.

All in all, I’m shocked to find crazy people writing stuff on the web.

Comment #16: Tyro  on  05/10  at  02:10 PM

I’m confused by his problem about pants. I don’t own any dresses, and I haven’t worn a skirt in 20+ years. As a matter of fact I’ve seen plenty of dresses and skirts that are decidedly *im*modest, but he seems to be implying that dresses as a whole, are by definition modest for females, but pants aren’t?

I’ve also seen some pretty sexy-looking pants, but my point is that a garment category can’t be defined as modest or immodest, because any such category will have designs that range from all-revealing to all-concealing. So, what?

That’s as weird as his bobbed hair thing.

Comment #17: KMac  on  05/10  at  02:36 PM

The very first line of his website:

Dr’s. Phil and Leslie Kidd have given their lives to cross this great nation…

What more needs to be said?

Comment #18: Bitter Scribe  on  05/10  at  02:52 PM

As for the “long tongued” epithet, it reminds me of the stanza from the old song:

“Go tell that long-tongued liar
Go tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler, gambler, backbiter
Tell ‘em God Almighty’s goin’ to cut ‘em down.”

It’s good American revivalist/gospel rhetoric, whatever it means

Comment #19: dr ngo  on  05/10  at  02:52 PM

The whole “women in pants!” thing is a very early to ‘70s, 20th century thing.

I think the 1920s-‘30s it was daring to wear this “sports wear” outside of sports (Katherine Hepburn in pants for daily wear was a minor Hollywood scandal, for instance.)

Then the teenage “bobby-soxer” in jeans, a man’s shirt, bobby sox and saddle-shoes (late ‘40s to ‘50s)—another sign women were, horrors, going down the tubes.

This shit started all over again in the late ‘60s early’70s with women wearing—horrors!—pants suits in restaurants (some turned away!), to work, etc. Until, of course, it became accepted, with “designer” jeans thrown in to boot.

Dress code in my public high school up til ‘68—no pants at all for girls. Even Freshman year in state college, dress code pants okay, but no jeans.

So again, this guy must be a million zillion years old, or addicted to those skirt dragging prairie outfits polygamy groups force on their women.

Comment #20: judybrowni  on  05/10  at  02:53 PM

Is this a legitimate reading of the Bible?  It’s sort of become PC to act as though every religion really endorses moderate values, but in some cases, it’s starting to seem like a stretch.  The Bible (and the Torah, and the Koran, and the Book of Mormon) makes some pretty hateful claims

The Bible is definitely a misogynistic document, and the verse in Timothy that he references does, indeed exist. 

However, his reading is very extreme and, as others have pointed out, logistically unworkable in any permanent congregation.  Like pretty much every patriarchal institution in the history of the world, churches depend on the unpaid labor of women to function. 

His reading of the verse from Timothy seems to flow directly from his hatred of women, but there’s also an ignorance of Christian history involved here.  During the early days of Christianity, when Timothy was writing, there were many woman-led congregations and female prophets.  That’s what Timothy was denouncing - like Phil Kidd himself, Timothy just couldn’t deal with female competition.  A few hundred years later, when the Council of Nicea was picking and choosing the texts that would be included in the Bible (no, there was no Bible when Adam and Eve were in the Garden, but don’t bother telling Phil Kidd that - there are “Bible-Believing” Christians who belief the Bible was encoded in the stars at the Dawn of Creation), they made sure to include the “Women Sit Down and Shut Up” letter, probably for much the same reason.

it’s certainly an option to just ignore those things, it’s hard to see exactly how to tie it all back together then.

I don’t know how other denominations handle it, but the Catholic church acknowledges that some parts of the Bible are history (and the history of a brutal time, at that), some are poetry, some are allegory, some (they believe) are visions that the visionary set down verbatim (i.e. NOT literal), and some - of course - are the actual words of Jesus.  With that in mind, individual sections have to be interpreted in context of the “overall message of salvation”.  Love thy neighbor?  Sounds valid.  Cut off a woman’s hand if she, in the process of defending her husband, grabs a man’s nutsack in anger?  Not so much. 

I don’t knock it.  It let’s people like Fred Clark exist.

Comment #21: Seraph  on  05/10  at  02:54 PM

Wow. When was this posted? On Mother’s Day? What a jackass.

Comment #22: Mark  on  05/10  at  03:05 PM

He’s accurate on every particular. More extreme readings include no braiding the hair or wearing gold jewelry or pearls. And some ban any jewelry at all and all make-up.

Isaiah 3 is their reasoning:
16The LORD says, 
    “The women of Zion are haughty,
    walking along with outstretched necks,
    flirting with their eyes,
    tripping along with mincing steps,
    with ornaments jingling on their ankles.

17 Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion;
    the LORD will make their scalps bald.”

18 In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings and bracelets and veils, 20 the headdresses and ankle chains and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, 21 the signet rings and nose rings, 22 the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses 23 and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.


Many of the more repressive denominations consider it more humble not to wear those things in first place.

And EVERY church I attended was very firm on the “Women do not preach and do not teach mixed Sunday school after the pupils are 13.”

They wonder why neopaganism is the fastest growing religion in the country…

Comment #23: Angelia Sparrow  on  05/10  at  03:16 PM

Oh, KMac, if you have time, and a good supply of eyeball bleach handy, sometime you should poke around the dusty corners of the modesty people’s internets.  There are people willing to type and publish, under their own names and with no hint of embarrassment, that women shouldn’t wear pants because it’s impossible in pants to conceal the fact that you have a crotch, and ain’t nothing more distracting than knowing that somewhere under that clothing, her legs are attached to her torso.  I seem to recall a bit about how activities that involve alot of voluptuous bending and stretching - you know, like gardening - require skirts lest a woman bending over her flowerbeds in ass-defining pants drive men wild with lust.

Comment #24: Kyso K  on  05/10  at  03:17 PM

Re: the pants thing (since I’m grading papers about androgyny, excuse the pedantic tone).

Bifurcated garments were the hallmark of freedom pre-automobile.  (Ever watch a strict Baptist group on a horseback riding field trip?)  Riding a horse astride is a secure seat.  Sidesaddle is an inherently unstable option.  Thus keeping a woman from literally escaping her father or husband or whatever pursuer. 

The invention of the bicycle in the Victorian era brought this controversy to the fore again.  Amelia Bloomer is credited with wearing said garment which allowed women the freedom of this new invention - and why many railed against pants - think how much farther a women could get out of Daddy’s/hubby’s sight?

So it’s a control thing - modesty coupled with the symbolic figurative entrapment - it keeps many a fundie women out of the gym and out of being physically active or in shape in other pursuits - because they’re not talking as a fashion statement about skirts, KMAC and Mark.  In the fundie world all skirts reach to the knee or below, generally loose but straight cut except for Sunday full skirt wear.

As for the bobbed hair - yep, it had to do with freedom, too.  Because bobbed hair was associated with flappers and Coco Channel, who generally also eschewed traditional undergarments - i.e. bustiers, corsets and stays - which physically cut a woman’s lung capacity by not allowing rib cage development. (See the short film “The Yellow Wallpaper.”)  Channel also utilized knit fabric which actually showed the body beneath.

And, long hair at the turn of the century was never worn long/loose (although fundie women of this type usually do today).  Then it was Pompadours with rats and a long time in front of the mirror and not letting a stray hair escape - imagine what a relief and time saving a bob was.

Comment #25: phylosopher  on  05/10  at  03:22 PM

Hey Mark,

but all those nuns and women in the RCC are still disenfranchised because they cannot be ordained.  (And most parish councils are still predominantly male.  So, sorry, the RCC gets zip, zilch, nada pass on this.  Not to mention the whole BC=bad, thing.

Comment #26: phylosopher  on  05/10  at  03:26 PM

It’s good that people like this are in Church, you certainly don’t want them loose on the streets.

Comment #27: Bilejones  on  05/10  at  03:28 PM

This is the problem with a literal interpretation of the bible.  Timothy is very clear that women have no business being church leaders.  Now most congregations just sort of selectively ignore this b/c they know it would never fly with their congregations.  It is just more of the do as I say not as I do.  At least this nut is being intellectually honest.  The religious women who use an obscure reading of Leviticus for their ant-gay hatred are being the real hypocrites.  Same goes for anyone with a tattoo, who eats pork, shellfish, or wears any kind of cotton polyester blend.

Comment #28: exlitigator  on  05/10  at  03:32 PM

Someone has a tiny little penis and is MAD!!!! Poor Kidd God has cursed him with the little penis…

Comment #29: Nixxx  on  05/10  at  03:51 PM

Some sorry Baptist Churches are now letting woman teach men and boys classes. No wonder America has turned “Sodomite”. Too many young men have had too many woman as their voice of authority.

That’s funny - the power structure of one of the most “sodomite” civilizations in history - ancient Greece - had a similar attitude toward women: shut up and breed (and leave us to our little boy mininions, okay?).

I don’t know about “tiny little penis” - I’d say it has to do with not wanting to compete with more than half the human race in a profession that is typically more interesting to females than to males.  Metaphorically impotent, if not actually impotent, I’d say.

Comment #30: Ms Kate  on  05/10  at  03:55 PM

Years ago, when the fundies were feeling their oats politically, a young fundie responded to a point I made in an op-ed about churches gay-bashing. She pointed out earnestly that all that stuff was from St. Paul, who, after all, never actually met or heard Jesus.

Comment #31: Bitter Scribe  on  05/10  at  04:01 PM

I’m with this guy.  Women should just be quiet and not exercise any authority over men.

Today’s performance review would be a good start.  I wonder if I can get my boss to respect the tenets of my new-found religious belief within the next four hours?...

The dude is screaming “I’ve just been PWNED by some smarter female”, isn’t he?...

(Mind you, a fair bit of that gets written into the Babble - look at Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

And it’s 1 Timothy 2:9.  You’ll notice he doesn’t quote the verse, though.  There’s a reason for that:

” 9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;”

Comment #32: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/10  at  04:15 PM

Why not all conservative raised kids are not screwed up

While their fathers are all rigid and authoritarian, the fathers often regard rearing children as women’s work, and the mothers are not part of the patriarchy.

Comment #33: MonkeyBoy  on  05/10  at  04:51 PM

Uh, MonkeyBoy, who do you think raised those patriarchal fathers?  Your statement reflects an ignorance of what the patriarchy is.

Comment #34: Ursula  on  05/10  at  05:29 PM

I’m not surprised by this…not one bit.

Comment #35: Uhura, The Black Gurl  on  05/10  at  05:46 PM

God never has called a woman to preach.

Joan of Arc did have the biggest nuts of them all, didn’t she?

Comment #36: Emily  on  05/10  at  05:53 PM

MonkeyBoy, right.  Just like the libertarian evopsych wierdo I dated for half a second was right when he said he KNEW his daughter was *naturally* more nurturing, obedient, stereotypically feminine than his son because his ex-wife was a stay-at-home mom who abandoned a promising business career in which she made more than he did to stay home and control for patriarchal/ sexist influences.

No, I’m not joking.  Neither was he.

Comment #37: Heo Cwaeth  on  05/10  at  05:57 PM

This makes me glad to be a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. Today the sermon was about goddesses, even.

Comment #38: annejumps  on  05/10  at  06:08 PM

I’d just turn around and ask the *ahem* gentleman if he believes in the inerrancy of scripture, and to please explain Galatians 3:28* if he does. I’ve seen someone turn puce trying to explain that line away while accepting others… **

Simply put, those chapters of the Bible were letters sent to various early churches that were well enough worded that they were copied and compiled as a good guide for churches going forward. Even if you believe that they are divinely inspired, and even divinely chosen for inclusion, it doesn’t follow that they are applicable always to all people. That’s just nonsense. Right up there with the people who believe that the book of Revalation is a book of prophecies for the 21st century, written in code for those who are brilliant enough to decode it…

*“In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.”

** and he was trying to justify it to a female Presbyterian minister who was running scripture quoting circles around him, to the general delight of her male peers present at the meeting. It ended with him saying “I know what I know and I know that God didn’t intend women to preach”, which allowed her to use that famous Twain line “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” ... which was when he turned puce.

Comment #39: kodiak  on  05/10  at  06:51 PM

Frankly, I love his purple tie.

Comment #40: seeker6079  on  05/10  at  06:52 PM

why do jagoffs like this seem to forget about Aimee Semple McPherson - most popular godbotherer of the early 20th century?
oh wait everyone who ever listened to her became gay, or their kids did, or something…?

it’s the batshit crazy that keep things amusing on the internet.

Comment #41: Danica Lefse Queen  on  05/10  at  07:18 PM

No surprise really, but dude sux balls at grammar, too.

Comment #42: Hornet  on  05/10  at  07:38 PM

Pam should show ‘em all and become a popular televangelist.

Nah, she’s got too much self respect and integrity for that.

Then again, I’m talking integrity with a wingnut who calls himself “a libertarian”.  Use a dictionary and look the word up, Franklin.

Comment #43: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/10  at  07:40 PM

Franklin’s just out of paint cans. A gas huffer like Franklin gets bored very, very easy when there’s no cans left.

Comment #44: atheist  on  05/10  at  08:33 PM

Dude; you can’t have it both ways- no self-respecting woman is going to stay in a place where she’s not welcome.

Um, I think that’s kind of the point.  These people do everything in their power to stop women from having self-respect.

My guess is that this guy has some kind of mommy-complex where he hates his mother for ever having power over him (and not letting him eat cookies for dinner), but he feels like he can’t take it out on her personally precisely because she still has some power over him.  I feel the deepest sorrow for any daughters this man might have now or in the future.  I feel almost as bad for any sons he might have, especially if they end up with some basic respect for women and their father berates them for it.

Comment #45: bananacat  on  05/10  at  09:25 PM

No surprise really, but dude sux balls at grammar, too.

Of course he does.

It just makes him sick to watch woman stand in front of a blackboard and teach a grammar class with boy’s in it, even worse when they teach the whole composition.

Them uppity bitch’s have no bizness telling men where to put there apostrophe’s.

(Wow. That was harder than it looked. I apparently don’t have the chops to write in authentic wingnut dialect.)

Comment #46: Dorothy  on  05/10  at  09:42 PM

Figures the guy is a Truther, too. The “Inside Job” 9/11 book even made it to the top of the main page on his site.

Comment #47: KMac  on  05/10  at  09:45 PM

This guy is acting like a younger sibling who finally discovered that his or her older sibling can’t boss him around because DAD SAID SO! PTHBLLLLT!

Only the Dad is imaginary, as is the sibship to women.

Comment #48: Ms Kate  on  05/10  at  10:01 PM

It’s funny how pretty much all the male prophets at some point get revelations from G*d that women should be subservient to them.

Is there a chance that bobbed hair is a coded reference to lesbians and their butch haircuts? (If it is, of course, this guy hasn’t seen a lot of godfearing midwestern women of a certain age…)

Comment #49: paul  on  05/10  at  10:17 PM

I’m really tempted to send this fucker an email, thus demonstrating that there’s yet another “lady” who refuses to shut up.

Comment #50: Sadie Morrison  on  05/10  at  10:30 PM

Danica, I bet they don’t mention Aimee Semple McPherson because of the “abduction” scandal that derailed her career.  Just as embarrassing in its time as any Ted Haggard!

Comment #51: Rikibeth  on  05/10  at  10:41 PM

My grandmother lived in Shanghai, China, and she told me about McPherson’s visit there in 1936.

According to her, the sound of coins clinking in the collection plate bothered Aimee somewhat, what she preferred was the soft rustle of paper money in said plate.

Comment #52: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/10  at  10:53 PM

“It’s funny how pretty much all the male prophets at some point get revelations from G*d that women should be subservient to them.”

A notable exception- Jesus. Granted, the alleged christians that come after him try to make up for that little oversight, but the man himself was always cool.

Comment #53: Liz212  on  05/10  at  11:06 PM

Some dilute acetic acid and dihydrogen dioxide for the poor put upon gentleman with the male entitlement problem. STAT!

Comment #54: Ms Kate  on  05/10  at  11:12 PM

Franklin, don’t you have a pole to wax?

Comment #55: teac  on  05/10  at  11:13 PM

How clever of you to conflate the womens’ movement with the struggle of the African-Americans!

How kind of you to contribute such a clear-cut example of the apostrophe struggles of the Wingnut-Americans!

(Psst! “Uppity” has traditionally been applied to all sorts of groups who don’t “know their place” in society; technically, it could refer to all individuals who are not white males and yet somehow still think they are just as good as “real” people.

And since you were clearly being sarcastic in that comment, I won’t pick on you for the “monolithic black hive mind” bullshit.)

Comment #56: Dorothy  on  05/11  at  12:32 AM

A notable exception- Jesus. Granted, the alleged christians that come after him try to make up for that little oversight, but the man himself was always cool.

Well, you know, he notoriously knelt in front of men to show his love (John 13:1-5).  Presumably, he didn’t have heated fantasies about women kneeling in front of him…

Comment #57: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/11  at  12:50 AM

Franklin, we Pandagonians objected to the use of uppity against Obama during his campaign, pointing out that uppity is used on blacks AND women, almost exclusively against those two groups, because the Patriarchy wants both groups to be ‘naturally’ subservient.

Comment #58: Samantha Vimes  on  05/11  at  01:15 AM

Frankie:

Nuance is lost on you, isn’t it?

Comment #59: BrianX  on  05/11  at  02:24 AM

holy fuck…

literally

Comment #60: denelian  on  05/11  at  03:31 AM

Apropos of nothing, I notice the ads have stopped pushing “hot women over 40!!” at me, and are now advertising gay singles.  I think it was that comment about Jesus kneeling…

Comment #61: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/11  at  03:42 AM

I actually have listened to this guy preach, many, many times. He was (probably still is, though I wouldn’t know) very popular with the church I used to attend, and which my parents still attend. This is, uh, tame, for him. Seriously.
And, about the “Dr” thing; I don’t know for sure, but I will bet $100 that his “doctorate” is from the unaccredited Christian college that my old church started and runs. Independent Fundamental Baptist churches with colleges often award honorary doctorates to their preacher/pastor friends, so they can go around calling themselves “Dr” Kidd and so on. Like I said, my old church was VERY fond of him, and giving him an honorary doctorate sounds very much like something they would do. They generally have SOMEONE getting an hon. doc at their graduation ceremony every year.

(BTW, I’m now pretty much an atheist. The kind of beliefs these people hold about women and their place in society drove me to the brink of suicide until I got a clue, got out, got some therapy and my own place to live. I haven’t been to church since my sister’s graduation.)

Comment #62: Aderyn  on  05/11  at  04:26 AM

Aderyn; in many places it’s easy for a religious institution to start its own educational branch and issue degrees. I keep thinking about parlaying my ordination (ULC) into a church and just giving toilet-paper doctorates to everybody I like.

But it seems like a lot of work.

Comment #63: Mark Temporis  on  05/11  at  07:47 AM

Yes, quite a lot of work, and also a LOT of money in donations. Many families put a second mortgage on their homes in order to finance this college; not as tuition for their children, but just to build the thing.

Comment #64: Aderyn  on  05/11  at  08:17 AM

Sounds like the old RCC formula for building churches and schools in immigrant neighborhoods in the early 20th century.  Now that so many are closing, they sell the buildings and the cash heads right out to the vatican.  Strange how you never hear about the evils of foreign investment there, though.

Comment #65: phylosopher  on  05/11  at  12:22 PM

Couldn’t he use a more appropriate word than “shut up”???  yikes.

Comment #66: lawonthestreet  on  05/11  at  12:39 PM

Hey, you!  Jeanne d’ Arc.  Get the ***k off that horse and back in the kitchen.  If we need your advice, we’ll ask.  Uppity bitch.

Comment #67: Magis  on  05/11  at  12:46 PM

She pointed out earnestly that all that stuff was from St. Paul, who, after all, never actually met or heard Jesus.

I’m amazed that a fundie would admit that.  One of the points I’ve tried to drive home about these people is that they really don’t worship Jesus, they worship Paul of Tarsus, who hijacked Jesus’ message and inserted his own hateful screed in its place.  Notice how seldom fundies quote the Gospels, and rely instead on Paul’s books.  I call them Paulians, and I wish more people did the same.

Comment #68: PWI  on  05/11  at  01:09 PM

It is pretty typical for a patriarchal institution like the church to remind women of their proper roles in the patriarchy on Mother’s Day.  It’s as traditional as pretending to honor mother by fucking up the kitchen making a breakfast meant to be eaten in an uncomfortable position that is bound to make more of a mess than if eaten at the table. 

I recall a Mother’s Day as a child when my mother took my sister and me to church, but we skipped out on the sermon to walk around the grounds (which had a grotto, so it was a nice little walk).  I asked my mom why we weren’t going to church and my mother told me that the sermon the priest gave was full of crap about how “good” mothers stay at home and are subservient.

Comment #69: Ursula  on  05/11  at  02:09 PM

Hey, you!  Jeanne d’ Arc.  Get the ***k off that horse and back in the kitchen.  If we need your advice, we’ll ask.  Uppity bitch.

Get back on that horse! This is MY kitchen!

Comment #70: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits  on  05/11  at  02:25 PM

Couldn’t he use a more appropriate word than “shut up”???  yikes.

He wants to bully women, and so he chose the most offensive term he would be permitted to use in the context of a church sermon. I suspect if Kidd had his way, and didn’t need to keep even a loose rein on that nasty tongue of his, he’d be calling female congregants ‘bitches’ and ‘whores,’ singling out specific women with “bobbed hair” or who were wearing pants for public shaming through especially harsh derision.

Comment #71: Nil  on  05/11  at  02:51 PM

Reason 111,789, 438 in “why I love my Episcopalian church.”

Comment #72: JupiterPluvius  on  05/11  at  03:25 PM

My own personal turning point was reading Sue Monk Kidd’s “The Dissident Daughter” where she suddenly realizes that women comprise the bulk of the church work (in terms of membership numbers, getting the kids to church on Sunday, and running the behind-the-scenes stuff, like the bake sales mentioned above) and yet they get absolutely nothing but contempt in return. They don’t even get a gender-neutral god, for crying out loud, even though “God” is supposed to be genderless - we call “him” “father” anyway. It’s a great book, and details her reluctant turn from Christianity to what I would term neopaganism.

Comment #73: Essie Elephant  on  05/11  at  03:38 PM


preacher-hating, pants-wearing

I first read that as “pants-hating”, and wondered why my church is so far out of the mainstream that we can’t even get consensus for a single pants-optional meeting for worship, much less a pantslessness mandate.

Comment #74: cminus  on  05/11  at  05:51 PM

“It’s funny how pretty much all the male prophets at some point get revelations from G*d that women should be subservient to them.”

A notable exception- Jesus. Granted, the alleged christians that come after him try to make up for that little oversight, but the man himself was always cool.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html#32

Jesus grants divorce to men whose wives cheat, but not to women whose husbands cheat.

Comment #75: asdf  on  05/11  at  06:25 PM

obscene and not heard

Will someone hand Frankie a handkerchief, please?

Comment #76: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/11  at  06:54 PM

Well, I won’t be going to his church for the music, that’s for sure. No wimmin, no gays - where on earth does this minister think that he’s going to find a choir director that isn’t tone deaf or a reject from a rock band?

As usual, the more conservative the Protestant pastor is, the worse his use of punctuation.

In Jesus’ day, women generally didn’t have independent means of support, and getting a divorce meant moving in with parents who didn’t want you back, or begging or whoring on the street. I don’t know that it would have been too common for women to seek divorce for reason of an adulterous husband.

Comment #77: NancyP  on  05/11  at  08:51 PM

Essie, thanx for the book recommendation - i just order it from the library!

Comment #78: denelian  on  05/11  at  10:25 PM

asdf, I’m not sure that’s what that quote means. It’s probably phrased as such because of Jewish law requiring a “get” from a rabbinical court for a divorce, and it was ultimately the husband’s decision as to whether or not he would allow the divorce to go through, regardless of the findings of said court. But Jesus did advance the revolutionary idea that a man could commit adultery against his wife, (in both Matthew and Mark) which was a unique concept. I’d give more credence to the skeptic annotating that Bible if they’d read some stuff from the people involved with The Jesus Seminar.

Comment #79: Liz212  on  05/11  at  11:36 PM

“obscene and not heard”

franklin the troll has officially jumped the shark. nice run, dude, but man, you fucked it up in the end. fake fake fake troll.

Comment #80: chibi  on  05/12  at  12:04 AM

denelian, this is for you and your lapsed Catholic bf.

Comment #81: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/12  at  12:14 AM

we can’t even get consensus for a single pants-optional meeting for worship, much less a pantslessness mandate.

Maybe they fear a boxer rebellion?

Comment #82: Ms Kate  on  05/12  at  12:15 AM

we can’t even get consensus for a single pants-optional meeting for worship, much less a pantslessness mandate.

Maybe they fear a boxer rebellion?

No pubes on the pews, please.

Comment #83: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  05/12  at  12:23 AM

Tyro, the KJV is the true and original and untranslated Word of God

Comment #84: Hershele Ostropoler  on  05/12  at  08:44 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.