I’m going to need a source for that. Because while there were attempts by some to scientifically justify their religious beliefs like racism and misogyny, the enlightenment was about following evidence without holding onto past dogma.
A lot of the enlightenment was also about bullshitting science to justify past dogma. It can’t be said that it was a unified movement, so there will definitely be plenty of examples of people who were genuinely forward-thinking and had only good intentions. But pseudosciences like eugenics and phrenology were used to sell a narrative of European racial superiority, and even more legitimate ideas like evolution and psychology were twisted to fit this narrative that Europeans were somehow more evolved and developed. This in turn justified practices of colonialism, slavery, and segregation as somehow making the world a more enlightened place, under the stewardship of the enlightened peoples.
The enlightenment was like a metaphorical medicine that cured society of its superstitious past, but like many medicines, it could be poisonous if taken the wrong way.
Women (who owned property worth more than £5 (which remained as the restriction on men) lost the right to vote in 18th century England off the top of my head.
Midwivery was illegalised too, and replaced by scientific male doctors.
" The outpouring of religious fervor and revival began in Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1790s and early 1800s"
The age of Enlightenment ended with a renewed religious fervor. It took decades for religious views to again be tempered before women were allowed to vote again.
OK, so you responded to me talking about science and reason taking away women’s rights in 18th century England with a 19th century American religious resurgence. The religious aspect was not used to justify the removal of women’s rights in England.
I’m missing something I think. What are you implying or showing?
I’ll just partially disagree on the phrasing of “religious beliefs like racism and misogyny”. Yes, there was misogyny in the Church, but it was not so strong before. And racism was “invented” and retroactively connected afterwards.
It’s what I learned in school and through my life, but I don’t have sources on that.
Yes?
That’s what I meant.
And it became much worse after the justification of enlightened “reason”.
The Protestant Reformation is an odd case in that while Martin Luther may have been misogynist, it succeeded because there were a number of very strong female leaderships (specially his wife). These women were only pushed to the sidelines when the cultural Enlightenment pushed the church into a congealed orthodoxy.
? I claimed it was worse. Enlightenment made it a little better (women with property could vote), then religious reactionaries took it back temporarily.
I think it is self evident that most Christians have moved away from following the Bible as a moral code unlike the medieval Saints and founders of Protestism. For example the Bible explicitly prohibits women politicians and professors.
What I know is that in medieval times gender roles were much more flexible and “undefined”, and it was Enlightenment that pushed for strict categorization and definition of these things.
If you are thinking about that letter from Paul, I won’t claim to know for sure, but it might have been a prohibition in a specific situation, as it’s a personal letter, and in another Paul highly praises many female leaderships in church.
I’m no biblical scholar but it isn’t just Paul. Here are some quotes:
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” 1 Corinthians 14:34
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” 1 Timothy 2:12
“For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands,” 1 Peter 3:5
“To the woman he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” Genesis 3:16
“Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.” Isaiah 3:12
I’m going to need a source for that. Because while there were attempts by some to scientifically justify their religious beliefs like racism and misogyny, the enlightenment was about following evidence without holding onto past dogma.
A lot of the enlightenment was also about bullshitting science to justify past dogma. It can’t be said that it was a unified movement, so there will definitely be plenty of examples of people who were genuinely forward-thinking and had only good intentions. But pseudosciences like eugenics and phrenology were used to sell a narrative of European racial superiority, and even more legitimate ideas like evolution and psychology were twisted to fit this narrative that Europeans were somehow more evolved and developed. This in turn justified practices of colonialism, slavery, and segregation as somehow making the world a more enlightened place, under the stewardship of the enlightened peoples.
The enlightenment was like a metaphorical medicine that cured society of its superstitious past, but like many medicines, it could be poisonous if taken the wrong way.
Women (who owned property worth more than £5 (which remained as the restriction on men) lost the right to vote in 18th century England off the top of my head.
Midwivery was illegalised too, and replaced by scientific male doctors.
Science and Reason was used to justify both.
1830 was post enlightenment. It was characterized by a return to religious fundamentalism known as the Second Great Awakening.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening
That’s the 19th Century, so it’s about 100 years after what I was talking about.
The Enlightenment is generally regarded as being the 17th and 18th centuries, or 1601 - 1800.
From the wiki link I already posted:
" The outpouring of religious fervor and revival began in Kentucky and Tennessee in the 1790s and early 1800s"
The age of Enlightenment ended with a renewed religious fervor. It took decades for religious views to again be tempered before women were allowed to vote again.
OK, so you responded to me talking about science and reason taking away women’s rights in 18th century England with a 19th century American religious resurgence. The religious aspect was not used to justify the removal of women’s rights in England.
I’m missing something I think. What are you implying or showing?
The British Great Awakening preceded the American one and ended with the end of Enlightenment.
By your own admission, 1830 was not the age of Enlightenment.
Ah, I had my date wrong. It was later than I remembered, and you were saying 1830 as that coincided with it.
I’m sorry, it was my mistake from the start. Thanks for being patient with me.
It’s exactly about those that I’m talking about.
I’ll just partially disagree on the phrasing of “religious beliefs like racism and misogyny”. Yes, there was misogyny in the Church, but it was not so strong before. And racism was “invented” and retroactively connected afterwards.
It’s what I learned in school and through my life, but I don’t have sources on that.
Martin Luther was very into mysogeny.
https://margmowczko.com/misogynist-quotes-from-church-fathers/
Before that, medieval Saints like Augustine wrote against women.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/23/medieval-christian-misogyny-shapes-how-we-judge-women-today-says-scholar#%3A~%3Atext=Many+“very+influential”+writers+of%2Crespectable”+women+who+did+not.
Yes?
That’s what I meant.
And it became much worse after the justification of enlightened “reason”.
The Protestant Reformation is an odd case in that while Martin Luther may have been misogynist, it succeeded because there were a number of very strong female leaderships (specially his wife). These women were only pushed to the sidelines when the cultural Enlightenment pushed the church into a congealed orthodoxy.
? I claimed it was worse. Enlightenment made it a little better (women with property could vote), then religious reactionaries took it back temporarily.
I think it is self evident that most Christians have moved away from following the Bible as a moral code unlike the medieval Saints and founders of Protestism. For example the Bible explicitly prohibits women politicians and professors.
What I know is that in medieval times gender roles were much more flexible and “undefined”, and it was Enlightenment that pushed for strict categorization and definition of these things.
If you are thinking about that letter from Paul, I won’t claim to know for sure, but it might have been a prohibition in a specific situation, as it’s a personal letter, and in another Paul highly praises many female leaderships in church.
That doesn’t match any scholarship I’ve read. Medieval Europe was a patriarchy in the classic sense. Woman were second class citizens.
https://thescholarship.ecu.edu/items/f84ef457-a230-4ba8-bddb-72a5982d5af2#%3A~%3Atext=The+Middle+Ages+is+often%2C%2C+fight%2C+and+work).
I’m no biblical scholar but it isn’t just Paul. Here are some quotes:
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” 1 Corinthians 14:34
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” 1 Timothy 2:12
“For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands,” 1 Peter 3:5
“To the woman he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’” Genesis 3:16
“Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.” Isaiah 3:12