Fox News guest Rev Jesse Lee Peterson says women shouldn’t be allowed to vote

What’s wrong with the United States? Simple . . . women voters, that’s what!

At least, according to Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, a frequent guest on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News. Hannity also sits on the board of directors of Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, which aims to promote a conservative agenda to black Americans.

A frequent Fox News guest has drawn wide condemnation for saying women should have never been given the right to vote.

In a sermon that was posted on YouTube in March, Rev Jesse Lee Peterson said women are leading the United States down a path of wickedness because they have too much political power.

Fox News host Sean Hannity has invited Rev Peterson on his show several times, including after the video was posted, and sits on the board of the conservative activist’s organization.

The remark seemed to draw disagreement, if not condemnation, from Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch, who tweeted: ‘When? Women voting is best thing in a hundred years.’

Rev Peterson’s fiery statement had drawn immense criticism.

‘I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote,’ Peterson said in the sermon.

‘We should’ve never turned this over to women. It was a big mistake… And these women are voting in the wrong people. They’re voting in people who are evil who agrees (sic) with them who’re gonna take us down this pathway of destruction.

Peterson went on to say that men should be legally permitted to hit their wives, and that women are too emotional to make decisions.

‘You walk up to them with a issue, they freak out right away. They go nuts. They get mad. They get upset, just like that. They have no patience because it’s not in their nature. They don’t have love. They don’t have love,’ he said.

And the right wing wants to go after Jeremiah Wright?

Sean Hannity has not commented on Peterson’s recommendation to legalize domestic violence (man-on-woman only, of course) or eliminate certain citizenship rights of women.

212 Responses to Fox News guest Rev Jesse Lee Peterson says women shouldn’t be allowed to vote

  1. Could this be a Poe?

    • Highly unlikely that Sean Hannity and all of the Faux News factoid checkers would be taken in by a Poe, Matt . . . but possible, I suppose! I doubt it, though. It’s all perfectly consistent with Biblical doctrine.

  2. Has Rev Peterson considered converting to Islam? There are some nice verses in the Quran that agree with the reverend’s views on women.

    • There are just as many verses in the bible that support misogyny. 1 Timothy 2:12 says “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

      • avatar A different Adam

        Taking 1 Ti 2:12 out of context is as meaningless as taking a verse from the Koran or any random quote from any person out of context. That passage is actually affirming men’s role as leaders in the church–which the Bible indicates is mandated by God, not men. It’s not misogynistic if one believes that God created men and women to be different in some ways and to fulfill some unique roles. That passage in no way means that women should be silent or not teach or even not have authority over men in secular environments and roles–it’s only about women in the church. Since no one is forced to attend church, I submit that it’s actually hypocritical to criticize it: anyone who wants women to have as much freedom as men must also grant them the freedom to worship freely as they may choose, including in a church in which they voluntarily refrain from certain roles. Freedom works both ways. The Bible does not actually support Peterson’s views. But, of course, since he claims to support biblical beliefs, those against Christianity are happy to lump him in with other Christians and vilify them all and criticize the entire Bible unjustly. Hopefully, level-headed people who think rationally and logically will not make this mistake. One loud person is not equal to everyone else. There are just as many misogynistic, narrow-minded, bigoted people who are atheists. But it’s so easy to lump and label everyone together, it’s hard to resist, isn’t it?

        • The Bible does not actually support Peterson’s views. _________________________________________________________ And he would say the same of your views. That’s the problem with gods and their (in reality the human beings that wrote it) unlimited power using a crappy old book open to 2,000 years of interpretation. It’s been battered inside out by the constant changing of the ‘spirit of our times’. The fact that the bible is a book, that it’s open to interpretation destroys the point of it in the first place. See 33,000 denominations of Christianity for reference. But you just phooey someone else’s opinion and chuck it in the trash can before regurgitating your own opinion which is actually like Petersons – based on interpretation and speculation. I assume you’ve heard of the no-true-scotsmans fallacy before though, no? ;)

          • A different Adam, I have a clue for you. That men are supposed to be the leaders in church wasn’t mandated by God…. ….it was mandated by other men. The Bible was written by men. And they put that passage in the Bible for one reason: They were afraid of losing their power if they let women have authority. If you want to play this “mandated by God” bit then I’m sure you agree that it’s a mandate from God that if you touch the skin of a dead pig you’re to be put to death? I guess we’ll have to kill, literally, the NFL. Or that if a farmer plants two different crops side by side he is to be put to death. Or if someone wears clothes of mixed thread types they’re to be put to death. And I’d like to know exactly how much you’re asking for, if you have a daughter, to sell her into slavery. All of that is in the Bible and can, stupidly, be claimed that it’s “mandated by God.” As for “It’s not misogynistic if one believes that God created men and women to be different in some ways and to fulfill some unique roles.” congratulations..that is entirely misogynistic. There is exactly one role that the two genders are different on..and that’s bearing children. There is nothing in the makeup of women that says they can’t be church leaders. And in fact, and I say this as a Catholic, the Catholic church would be far saner if they did have some female church leaders. Instead they don’t so they run around getting themselves into tizzy’s over the Girl Scouts, contraception and gays. Your statement that “It’s not misogynistic if one believes that God created men and women to be different in some ways and to fulfill some unique roles.” is as stupid as if you said “There’s nothing racist if one believes that God created whites and blacks to be different in some ways and to fulfill some unique roles” Or would you care to argue that’s not racist?

          • avatar A different Adam

            Eamon, there are a few logical fallacies in your post. You call the Bible a “crappy old book,” but the Bible is actually the most well-preserved document in human history. For example, biblical scholars agree that we can accurately reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, and the only parts that have ambiguity are not doctrinally relevant. It’s far from a “crappy old book”–you just don’t agree with it. That’s fine, but make your argument logically, rather than using ad hominems and personal attacks. Second, you imply that if we cannot know with 100% certainty the meaning of a text that it is irrelevant, and that it’s pointless to try to determine its meaning. This makes no sense, regardless of whether it’s the Bible, the Constitution, or an email from a friend. The fact is that every document ever written is open to interpretation–so by your logic, every document ever written has no point. This is obviously not the case. You’re simply prejudiced against the Bible. It’s always interesting how Christians are accused of being narrow-minded and irrational–and certainly, some are–but there are just as many atheists who are, as well. I encourage you to open your mind to the possibilities, and to study and determine the truth for yourself–rather than “regurgitating” what you’ve been told or what’s popular.

          • avatar A different Adam

            JamesK, your entire argument is based on the presupposition that God does not exist and that the Bible is not an inspired document. Of course, I can’t prove to you that that’s not the case. However, my presupposition is that God does exist and that he did inspire men to write the Bible. I also assert that, if God did create the universe and everything in it, including us, he has the right to call men to some roles and women to others. If he’s omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent, who are we, mere flesh and blood, to argue? Thankfully, he gives us free will to accept or reject his wishes. I hope you do the same, including respecting the rights of men and women to call people to these roles, and for them to choose to abide by them. There are many Christian movements throughout history which have been based on power and on controlling others. However, the first century church, the one recorded in and authorized by the New Testament, was nothing like this. The head of the church is Christ himself–not men. Regarding male and female roles specifically, the doctrine of male leadership is tied directly to the Creation story–a precedent that transcends cultural, social, and chronological issues. A fact that is often overlooked is that the Bible is actually quite empowering to women, and was actually counter-cultural at the time it was written. In contrast to the cultures of the day, the New Testament affirms the value of women. The gospel narratives present women in roles that were unusually prominent for their time. There are also specific examples of women serving in the church–a far cry from being hidden away or stifled. Finally, there are many passages which affirm women’s equality to men–even passages which call men to submit to women! It’s convenient to ignore these, however, and focus on single verses, taken out of context, which appear to be misogynistic. Such an approach is not logical or reasonable–it is quite prejudiced, and it does not pursue truth. I encourage you to try to set aside your prejudices and study and determine the truth for yourself, rather than allow society and popular culture to spoon-feed you half-truths and bigotry–yes, bigotry against Christians is just as much bigotry as racism or sexism. (Note, however, that there is a difference between bigotry and tolerant disagreement.)

          • I’m biggotted against Christains? That would be funny, Adam, considering I’m Catholic. I’m not presupposing that God doesn’t exist. I’m stating the fact that humans, not God, wrote the Bible. That Bible you’re reading? Who do you think put that together? Oh yeah..the Catholic church. You’re argument boils God down to a morally depraved jackass. Why? Because in the Bible it says, among other things, that it’s perfectly legal to sell your daughter into slavery. That farmers who plant two different crops side by side are to be killed. If you touch the bed of your wife when she’s having her period..sorry we have to kill you. If you wear clothes of mixed thread types then you’re also under a death sentence. And that’s not even going into the fact that the Bible contradicts itself at time. Like one section on Noah’s flood says he took two of every beast. Another says he took seven. If you think God says that women shouldn’t be leaders in church then you need to take a very close look at most of the protestant denominations because quite a few of them have female church leaders. And you are the one being a bigot and a misogynist. Because there is nothing biologically about a woman that says she isn’t qualified to be a church leader. The only difference, child, between the sexes is who plays what part in procreation and that’s it. If you had tried telling my other that she wasn’t qualified to be a church leader because she was a woman..my mother would have kicked your ass. It’s time, Adam, that you enter the 21st century. Because as it stands your views are no different then, for example, the Taliban when it comes to women. The views of a man stuck in the dark ages scared to death of surrendering his power to any woman. By the by..”inspired by God” does not mean written by God. Unless you want to say that the person, who is believed to be Lisa Gherardini, who inspired Galileo to paint the Mona Lisa but that she actually did the painting rather then Galileo? Or that the statue of David by Michelangelo was actually sculpted by David and not Michelangelo? I suggest, Adam, that you disabuse yourself of this notion that you speak for the entirety of Christianity and stop assuming just because someone opposes you that means 1: that they’re not Christian and 2: are bigotted against Christianity.” The Bible was not written by God..but by fallible humans with their own agenda. Even the Bible says not to believe everything you read.

          • Oh and by the way…you’re also ignoring the fact that there were quite a few female church leaders in ancient times. Time for you to start dealing with reality little boy rather then living in your misogynistic fantasy world.

          • I find it especially cute, Adam, that your standard response to anything we quote from the Bible that you don’t like is to say “You’re taking it out of context” and yet you’re taking the verse of the Bible that supposedly says women are not to be church leaders/teachers out of context. That context being simply the time period it was written in. You want to take something out of the Bible that was written thousands of years ago when women were little better then chattel and try applying to the 21st century. And you’re not taking it out of context? As I said..that passage is there not because of anything God said..but because male church leaders wanted to strip female church leaders of their power and authority and the men were also scared of losing what power and authority they had to women. It’s simply the same reason that so many men opposed giving women the right to vote in this country in the time before the 19th amendment. You are wrong. You are simply an misogynistic bigot. Go apologize to the women in your life and repent your sin.

          • avatar A different Adam

            Temp ==== Created Monday 28 May 2012 James, there are some problems with your posts, such as factually incorrect assertions, and logical fallacies. You also don’t even discuss the topic of the inspiration of Scripture–rather, you simply say that people wrote it, while ignoring inspiration. Finally, your treatment of the Old Testament and of apparent contradictions in Scripture is ruidimentary. First, the Catholic church did not put together the Bible. The Catholic church did not exist when the Bible was written. The collection of the canon took centuries and was not an act of the Catholic church. I understand your apparent dissatisfaction with Catholicism–it sounds like you’re even angry at it, which is understandable. However, you seem to be equating Catholicism with Christianity, at least, historically. The Catholic church is not authorized by, nor endorsed by, the New Testament. The Catholic church is not “the church” as written about in the NT. The Catholic church is a human institution, while the NT church is the church of which the head is Christ himself. The church is made up of people, but according to the Bible, Jesus is the head of the church, not a man, nor men. If your whole concept of Christianity and “the church” is Catholicism, then naturally, you will perceive many problems and contradictions in the Bible, based on Catholic doctrine and interpretations. What you need to do is examine Scripture outside of Catholicism’s doctrinal influence. You seem to be strongly concerned about contradictions between the OT and the NT, and that’s a very real issue. But you don’t seem to have investigated it very thoroughly. As a quick example of your surface-level interpretation of the OT, you don’t seem to consider things like: 1. The OT was written many thousands of years ago, from within and to a completely different culture. There are millenia of layers of culture and time which separate us from its original setting. Understanding its meaning is not simply a matter of attempting to apply OT laws to contemporary society and imagining the implications. 2. God works within culture, not just outside of and above it. It can be observed that he tends to make some changes gradually, in spite of his ultimate will. For example, Abraham was probably a henotheist, who probably believed in the existence of more than one god while believing that YHWH was the Most High. Later, YHWH made it quite clear that He is the Only God, not simply the Most High god. If you consider the OT laws which appear to contradict NT morality and contemporary societial norms in light of this point, it can drastically change your view of the OT. 3. The writers of the OT had no concept of modern science. Genesis was never intended to be a scientific account of anything. A written work must be considered on its own terms in order to discover its intended meaning. Attempting to read Genesis by modern, scientific standards will fail to provide understanding of the meaning intended by its authors. It’s very easy to discredit the OT by attacking these red herrings–they sound good, and it’s hard to argue against them, because you can’t argue with science, right? The problem is that it’s not even an issue of science, because science didn’t exist back then. Not to mention that, if we presuppose that God created the universe, science is irrelevant, because God could do whatever he wanted–he can operate outside natural laws and time. Sadly, those who latch on to such arguments are really depriving themselves of the pursuit of truth–they’re cutting themselves off at the pass. Regarding the differences between the sexes, your assertion that the only biological difference is in procreation is simply factually incorrect. This is a myth perpetuated by, in my opinion, those who claim to advocate equality but actually desire preferential treatment. The truth is that there are many biological difference besides the reproductive organs. But that fact doesn’t help people who want women to be treated better than men to attempt make up for many years of mistreatment (even more absurd considering that these women in question are too young to have been mistreated in the ways which they claim, and the men in question weren’t alive then either–so it’s really reverse discrimination. But all that’s another issue). Besides, it begs the question: does having equal value demand identical treatment in all circumstances? It’s not logical to say that it does–there are many situations in which men and women certainly want to be treated differently. Also: does having equal value demand identical roles? No–there are clearly roles better suited to men and to women, regardless of issues of leadership, morality, ethics, or politics. But it’s easy to just loudly demand “equality” in everything–but it rings hollow. You said: “If you think God says that women shouldn’t be leaders in church then you need to take a very close look at most of the protestant denominations because quite a few of them have female church leaders. … Oh and by the way…you’re also ignoring the fact that there were quite a few female church leaders in ancient times.” There are three fundamental logical fallacies with these statements: 1. It raises the question of what it means to be a leader. Does being a “leader” mean being a preacher? A minister? A pastor? An elder? A shepherd? A bishop? A deacon? A teacher? A song leader? A “plate passer”? A volunteer? A project organizer? A behavioral example? Without defining the leadership in question, it’s a meaningless statement. Since you didn’t even touch on this question, I think you haven’t looked into the issue very deeply. 2. Whether some denominations have women in certain roles is irrelevant. It also doesn’t matter whether there were female church leaders in ancient times. What matters is what God wants–not what people want, or what people do, or what people did. Our obligation is to discover what he wants and to do it. If we just did what other people are doing or did, there’d be no church at all. What if those denominations are wrong? Oh, they couldn’t be, because anything that limits any person in any way is inherently wrong, unethical, immoral, discriminatory, bigoted, etc. Sorry, that’s not logical–especially if you believe that God has the authority to dictate standards for our behavior. If he created he universe, then he has the ultimate authority–he defines morality–and what other people are doing is irrelevant. No, that’s not politically correct–neither was Jesus. 3. I did not say that God said that women shouldn’t be leaders in church–this is a strawman. I said: “There are also specific examples of women serving in the church–a far cry from being hidden away or stifled. Finally, there are many passages which affirm women’s equality to men–even passages which call men to submit to women!” Later, you said: “Because as it stands your views are no different then, for example, the Taliban when it comes to women. The views of a man stuck in the dark ages scared to death of surrendering his power to any woman.” I should hope such hyperbole is transparent to anyone who cares about truth. The Taliban advocates ownership, torture, and death of women. In contrast, the NT advocates equality before Christ, mutual submission, love, patience, kindness, fairness, and forgiveness. I even specifically said, “Finally, there are many passages which affirm women’s equality to men–even passages which call men to submit to women!” What is your agenda, that you should so vulgarly misrepresent my position? What are you after here? You said: “I suggest, Adam, that you disabuse yourself of this notion that you speak for the entirety of Christianity and stop assuming just because someone opposes you that means 1: that they’re not Christian and 2: are bigotted against Christianity.” Well, James, I suggest that you stop assuming that just because I disagree with you that I am in line with the Taliban. I don’t claim to speak for the entirety of Christianity. I claim to advocate Scripture as the authority for Christianity–not men. It doesn’t matter what people think or what people want–what matters is what God wants. The way we can find out what God wants is to study what he gave us: the Bible. You said: “You want to take something out of the Bible that was written thousands of years ago when women were little better then chattel and try applying to the 21st century. You want to take something out of the Bible that was written thousands of years ago when women were little better then chattel and try applying to the 21st century.” Are actually you reading what I write? I said: “A fact that is often overlooked is that the Bible is actually quite empowering to women, and was actually counter-cultural at the time it was written. In contrast to the cultures of the day, the New Testament affirms the value of women. The gospel narratives present women in roles that were unusually prominent for their time.” And at the same time you say that, you also try to apply even older standards to the 21st century in your careless treatment of OT laws. This seems hypocritical to me. You said: “…that passage is there not because of anything God said…It’s simply the same reason that so many men opposed giving women the right to vote in this country in the time before the 19th amendment.” You haven’t even mentioned the fact that the texts which speak about women’s roles in the church are directly linked to the Creation narrative–they’re founded on the way God created humanity. They are not based merely on pragamatic or cultural issues. Since you haven’t even mentioned this, I think you have also not investigated this issue very thoroughly. It sounds to me like your arguments are based on politics and popular culture–not Scripture. But as I said, what other people do is irrelevant to the issue of what should be done. What matters is what God wants. Perhaps your argument boils down to that we cannot determine what God wants because the Bible was not dictated by God verbatim. I disagree wholeheartedly with this–if it were true, we might as well give up and do whatever we want. If your argument is that we can know some things he wants but not others, like the roles of women, then I submit that you must be very careful with this argument, because your distinction is arbitrary and unjustified. Finally, your posts are full of insults like “enter the 21st century”, “little boy,” “fantasy world,” “child,” “bigot,” etc. The worst, of course, is saying that I agree with the Taliban regarding the treatment of women. I don’t know why you are taking out your anger on me–I haven’t mistreated you or anyone you know. We could have a more productive discussion if you’d be reasonable and humane. Besides, when you belittle me like that, it makes you sound angry and irrational, and it hurts your credibility. I don’t mind checking this page now and then and discussing this with you, but if you continue to be vulgar and rude toward me, I won’t participate anymore. I am not your enemy–at least, I don’t think I am, but I don’t know what you want.

  3. Can we do something about the stupid bots showing up?

  4. Hmm. So interesting that this guy is both a sexist AND racist. Interesting…

  5. ‘I think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote…’ *I* think that one of the greatest mistakes America made was to allow this piece of slime the opportunity to crawl out of the sewer! And, if he tried to hit me, I would (to use a good Australianism) “knock his teeth so far down his throat that he’d have to shove his toothbrush up his arse to clean them!”

  6. ‘Inspiration,’ A Different Adam? Is that what we’re calling misogynist males’ masturbatory fantasies nowadays?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>