Bringing up the Taliban every time a bunch of Christian Fundamantalists act like assholes is kind of like bringing up inner-city gangs every time a white kid from the suburbs commits an act of gun violence. It’s a way of saying “this kind of horrible behavior is what we expect from those people, not from our people.”
This is an American problem and trying to “other” it is a form of deflection.
I read that as saying he objected to knickers.
Deuteronomy 22:5 (ESV)
5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.
Not the intent, but I get the problem. Appreciated.
Thanks!
Oddly timely that that’s also the book that talks about cancelling debts every seven years. 
Yet the preacher is suspiciously silent about this. And about wearing mixed fabrics…
Methinks he may have an agenda.
Unfuck this guy, I’m wearing pants right now. 
i’m not.
Probably.
Order of the 9 angles and ISIS.
Some of Al Quada people probably studied other terrorist groups for advice on tactics. The real clue would be if the explicitly theonomist material was shared.
Actually, they aren’t that crazy. Pentecostal women are not allowed to wear pants. They all wear skirts or dresses. Young ladies wear short leggings (I imagine so they don’t turn on the little boys). I worked with a lady in that “Church”. They also can’t cut their hair. Over our 2 working years together I asked her a couple of times why they can’t cut their hair, and she never had an answer for me. They’re also strict about what’s watched, read or listened to. I’m pretty down on religion, but luckily she was pretty tolerant of me and the non-Christian life I lead, and not an insane nut like this guy.
It’s a “Christian” thing. I wrote a little bit about Pentecostal beliefs further down the comments.
Right, I’m aware of that sect. But my point is that the “modesty” culture that they attempt to enforce is based on the patriarchal notion that women are the primary controllers of men’s sexuality, and that being chaste and feminine in appearance will prevent rape by keeping men from raping. The argument that the poster I was replying to was that women have been historically “forced” to wear skirts and dresses to make it easier for men to rape them, and that’s just not the case at all.
Leviticus 19:19 “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
I guarantee that tie isn’t one material. Doubt his pants are either.
Hypocritical asshat.
I wonder if any of his congregants have tattoos (Leviticus 19:28) and if so, is he demanding laser removal surgery?
Given that America’s relationship with various ‘others’ tends to exist on a spectrum from ‘problematic’ to ‘genocidal’ it’s definitely something to be treated with caution; but I am inclined to wonder if it’s ever a flavor of appeal that gets through to otherwise hard targets by virtue of the(similarly problematic; but pervasive) influence of American exceptionalism.
You’d want someone to want to do better just because it’s the right thing to do; but if you’ve got a “'Murica! Not like those shitty countries!” type, there’s a strong temptation to try to appeal to the overlap of doing the right thing and their interests by pointing out that it’s only a constant and dedicated effort to do better in whatever the area is, rather than being 'Murica! that keeps us from being a shitty country; sometimes with specific references to how their bad idea or tolerated bad practice is painfully similar to something in a jurisdiction you don’t want to emulate.
“Louis, stop dragging your new comforter all over the house, you’re going to get it dirty, and crushed velvet has to be dry-cleaned!”
It is this contradiction that renders trousers a pertinent site for exploring the precarious boundaries of nineteenth-century categories of identity and, indeed, the ideological structures of categorical thinking. Thus, this essay asks: What happens to the social body when trousers – an indisputable emblem of male rational thought – are adopted by women, a population deemed to be inherently irrational, characterised by weakness of will and predisposed to nervous malady?
