Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1871-01-13
The Bible Argument against Woman
Suffrage.


FRIDAY. JAN. Ii, 1871.
The Bible Argument against Woman
Suffrage.
One of the Des Moines divines,
Rev. I. O. Rice, recently published
in the Register lecture or sermon
on the differentiation of Woman"
in which the Mosaic law in all it's
repressive stringency as regards
woman, was held up as the proper
rule to apply to the present condi-
ton of society, and what is dignifed
as the Bible argument against wo-
mans enfranchisement made to play
prominent part From the "pli-
ancy" of mother Eve, evinced by her
failure to resist temptation, down
to the admonitions of Paul, that the
wife should be subject to the hus-
band and women keep silence in the
churches, the Bible was raked for
arguments to prove that woman
should occupy a position Of inferi-
ority and dependence, and especial
ly, that she should not vote.
This stirred up Mrs. Annie Sa-
very, who replies in the Register Of
Saturday last. Attacking the rev.
. crend gentleman in his own chosen
positions she completely annihilates
his sophistical argument and shows
up his inconsistency. She insists
that if he accept and teach the No
sale programme in one particular he
shall in all; that if he use it to prove
that woman should be subordinate
to master, that he shall also con-
ccdc its authority as an argument
for polygamy and slavery. In like
manner she disposes of the argu-
mcnts from the New Testament,
showing that if the passage of Scrip
ture most quoted by the opponents
Of woman suffrage mean just what |
they claim them to mean-the sub
ordination of woman-the question
still remains, what has that to do
with woman suffrage? She says:
'"The Bible argument may all be
summed xp in two statements, viz:
The subsection of the wife to the
husband. The duty of all women
TO keep silence in the churches.
Paul also says in the same epistle,
Servants be obedicnt to them that
are your masters according to the
flesh, with fear and trembling" and
Peter says, Servants be subject to
your masters mith all fear, not only
to the good and gentle but also to
the forward" Here is some more
of that divine authority claimed by
the shareholders, for certainly the
subsection imposed upon the wife
does not equal that imposed upon
servants. Hence I will put the
proposition which must be estab-
lished by those who use the Bible
argument against woman suffrage
in the form of a syllogism.
Major premise.-Persons in a
subject condition, ought not to vote.
Minor premise-Married women
are in subjective condition.
Conclusion.-Therefore married
women ought not to vote.
Here it is to be seen lst, That the
major premise, the truth Of which
is necessary to the conclusion, is ut
terly unsound, inas,nnch as servants
are allowed to vote without objec-
ton. I'd, That the conclusion is of
little or no valne iHasmuch as it
leaves the case Of unmarried women
entirely untouched. But suppose
you put in this form, major premise
All that class of persons, Of whom
a part are in subject condition,
and all Of whom are forbidden to
preach ought not to vote. Minor
premisc-All women are Of that
class. Observation-Disclosures all
women ought not to vote. Just
think for moment of presenting it |
to the intelligence of this age Of
common schools and common sense,
rs self-sustaining proposition that,
"the entire class of whom apart are
in subject condi1iv:... lincluaing of
course, all servants) and WHO are
forbidden to preach, ought by rca-
son of these facts alone, never to be
allowed to vote" If any one will
undertake to sustain this PROPOSE
ton, before the people of this coun-
try, he must expect to encounter
merely ridicule."