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 “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said 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) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.
Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers 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, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.
The xtian activists definitely are aware of this overall trend (even if many of them will outright lie about it and many of the flock probably still think they are some kind of supermajority even if they have been losing adherents at about 1% every year for year after year) and it's exactly why they are agitating to fundamentally change this country to a xtian one.
They want to be able to COMPEL people to join/stay in their little book club. The only difference between xtian radicals and Islamists is where the retconning leaves off is different. Both of them worship the same god of "the" bible - Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah and both of them have the same dim view of unbelievers and women and outsiders, etc...
I still love that both of these are renderings of the same four letter word, יהוה, or yodh-he-vav-he. Because written Hebrew has a 22 letter alphabet but doesn't have vowels (but does include a silent letter for when you stick two distinctly separate vowel sounds together - think the two Os in cooperate).
Yeah, it's interesting to see how many different ways something like Kabbalah is spelled...
Man - I know most folks feel the best thing to do is get rid of religion all together - but at this stage I'd 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 today's world? Satan.
Insisting on not rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's? 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 anyone's 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 Brother's song Satan is Real is whenever I hear the guy's 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.
I'd 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/"stop the steal"/antimask/qanon/pizzagate memeplex) instead of being supplanted by reason.
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, Mātariśvan, 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 "beware of the hubris brought about by technology", 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.
I agree, all religion is backwards. There's always a group they don't like. It just changes depending on your "God's" region of authority.