Naghmeh Abedini files for legal separation

[Jim]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women’s rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.

I find the above objectives God-honoring! I bolded “cultural” because I frankly don’t know what that means!

It is so 1950’s to still be denigrating feminism and I assume only fundamentalism and a few other holdouts are stuck in that time warp. But again, it was liberals that introduced the radical idea that women actually should have equal rights to men, so therefore, it must be bad… :)

A continuum of change:

All change is good ––––––––––––– All change is bad

NONE of us believe either one of these two extremes. Therefore, we must evaluate each change through a biblical and theological lens in order to say whether it was good or bad change.

As it relates to “feminism”:

First of all, GregH seems to judge “feminism” solely on the basis of the good results he thinks it has brought, not based on its actual foundational/core beliefs, whether the beliefs of its founders or the beliefs of its modern-day advocates.

Second, we can place the changes feminism has wrought on the same continuum:

All changes brought about by feminism are good ––––––––––––– All changes brought about by feminism are bad

I certainly hope, Greg, that you are not arguing for the option on the left. In spite of what you might think, it is likely that none of us believes the option on the right. So we must evaluate each change brought about by feminism through a biblical and theological lens in order to say whether it was a good or bad change.

On one hand, I’m all for making sure women have the right to hold property, vote, hold a job of their choice for which they’re qualified, make contracts, and the like. On the flip side, what too many of us have seen of feminism is the Duluth Model, demands for abortion on demand and subsidies for birth control, and risking the lives of all by placing women in places like the infantry.

As one would guess from the various types of feminism you’ll see described on wikipedia and elsewhere, it’s a mixed bag like any collection of movements. Hence it’s not responsible to speak of it in either unmitigated glowing terms, or to demonize it altogether. We might do well to understand at least portions of it.

[GregH]

It is so 1950’s to still be denigrating feminism and I assume only fundamentalism and a few other holdouts are stuck in that time warp. But again, it was liberals that introduced the radical idea that women actually should have equal rights to men, so therefore, it must be bad…

It’s more than a little disingenuous to say that this is the only (or even primary) type, idea, or definition of feminism, even if it’s what you think of when you hear the word (and that isn’t true for me). One such holdout, stuck-in-a-timewarp, fundamentalist like Lady Gaga, said this about feminism - “I’m not a feminist — I, I hail men, I love men. I celebrate American male culture, and beer, and bars and muscle cars…” Clearly, knowing her history, she’s not referring to Jim’s definition above — she, like many in society today, rejects the us-vs-them nature of much of what feminism is known for. Feminism has many types, not just the simple “equality for all” Wikipedia definition quoted above.

I should have known that my criticism of Julie Anne’s statements would get turned by her and GregH into a gender discrimination issue, including an appeal to the moderator(s). Good grief. Did any of you read the entire comment in which I said — to her — that she was not “qualified” to be commenting on this issue? If you didn’t, here it is again. NOTE that I proceeded to state my reasons for saying she was unqualified. None of them were pejoratives about her gender, only her obvious mindset, agenda, bias, and very poor reasoning.

Julie Anne: You are not qualified to be commenting here. You have an overriding agenda, as is clear from your blog, which clouds your perception and your reasoning so substantially that you are incapable of rational or biblical discourse. You have misrepresented my position and my beliefs. You have concocted a conspiracy tale and impugned ministries that have tried only to help a persecuted brother and then had the gall to say you’ve provided factual support when you quite clearly have not. Your blog entry regarding the Abedinis should never have been cited here. You have no credibility on this specific situation.

As others have pointed out above, I didn’t use the word “qualified” in the sense that Julie Anne seized on. Shame on me for not seeing that rhetorical tactic coming. I engaged her comments until it became clear that she is not interested in reason, fairness, or scripture, and then I disengaged rather than waste more time. In my absence since then, I see that she has continued to churn this topic, mostly making it about her. You may or may not agree with me, but I think her comments following my last comment to her unequivocally prove the point I was making in that comment. If others want to bang their heads against that wall, more power to them.

Jim: I have a viewpoint, certainly. But I submit that viewpoint to scripture and to my local church — I don’t argue that my experience or others’ experiences means that applicable scripture can be ignored because it’s too hard to live that way or it’s not “safe” or that because some churches can’t be trusted then no church can be trusted. I also am willing to engage others here in civil discussion (or at least I try), and I am open to refining/correcting/modifying (and in some cases have done) the opinions I express based on those interactions. I don’t have a blog; I don’t tout myself as an expert; my past experience doesn’t trump objective truth.

If you don’t see a substantive difference between Julie Anne’s agenda and my “agenda,” I don’t understand how you get there, but ok. Even so, you’re ignoring the multiple other reasons that I took issue with the constructiveness of Julie Anne’s participation on this thread.

Can the discussion return to the merits of Naghmeh’s actions now? Julie Anne has branded me an abuse sympathizer here on SI. Big deal; she doesn’t owe me anything personally. Naghmeh has unilaterally, and contrary to specific representations she made while campaigning for his release from an Iranian prison for his faith (not for pornography or abuse or some sort of crime), branded her husband as an abuser and a porn addict in national media at a time when interest in his plight was at its peak. In my opinion, she has committed public treachery against her husband in violation of her vows to him and to God, against her church in violation of her membership promises, and against God and His Word. I think she needs to be called out on her behavior rather than being given a pass simply because she’s a woman or she claims abuse. I am not saying that if Saeed has treated her badly in some way or ways during his imprisonment that he should be given a pass either — but he’s not broadcasting his complaints or dissatisfactions about Naghmeh in the national media. If he were, I’d be criticizing him too. And because they are public figures and Naghmeh is capitalizing on that, I think her behavior is an appropriate topic for discussion here rather than being solely a private matter. I think there are lessons to be learned about how Christians default to certain assumptions when certain unilateral accusations are made, about how lax we are in our expectations regarding churches’ use of and Christians’ submission to church discipline, about how lax we are on divorce or predicates to divorce, and so forth. I assume the moderators see some usefulness to the discussion as well, or there wouldn’t be a filing on the subject. Let’s get it back to those topics, not (nonexistent) gender discrimination against female commenters.

As others have pointed out above, I didn’t use the word “qualified” in the sense that Julie Anne seized on.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter how you meant it, the point is that you used it in an effort to shut me up. That’s just not cool.

Shame on me for not seeing that rhetorical tactic coming.

You should have seen it coming. You are on record attempting to squelch two women.

I engaged her comments until it became clear that she is not interested in reason, fairness, or scripture, and then I disengaged rather than waste more time. In my absence since then, I see that she has continued to churn this topic, mostly making it about her.

From what I see, you are the one making the subject about me. Very odd.

You may or may not agree with me, but I think her comments following my last comment to her unequivocally prove the point I was making in that comment. If others want to bang their heads against that wall, more power to them.

Your histrionics are off-putting.

dmyers said:

In my opinion, she has committed public treachery against her husband in violation of her vows to him and to God, against her church in violation of her membership promises, and against God and His Word.

Saeed is a licensed pastor (btw, all he had to do to get his license was pay money, fill out a form and a couple of recommendations). He is a public figure representing Christ to the world. Do you really think that God is okay with a man whose family is in shambles, into porn, with a domestic violence conviction on his record, parading around as a representative of Christ? Why are you so concerned about a man’s reputation over God’s? Is your focus Biblical?

What do you know about the vows she made or what her church membership consists of? You accused me of quite a lot, but I have done good research and communicated directly with Naghmeh.

[Julie Anne]

​You accused me of quite a lot, but I have done good research and communicated directly with Naghmeh.

But of course, that’s still only one side of the story, unless you have also communicated with Saeed.

[Julie Anne (from another post)]

You are on record attempting to squelch two women.

Also, as I pointed out before, dmyers’ comment about qualification was not read by me either as having anything to do with gender. Enough with the gender card.

I’m beginning to come around to Don Johnson’s view about the usefulness of this thread. At this point it seems mostly speculation since none of us really have the full story. I think I’d like to ask for a halt to further posts on “Saeed was an abuser” or “Naghmeh’s behavior was shameful.” Let’s stick to the facts, assuming anyone actually knows any that are verified and not from hearsay.

I want to be clear. At the beginning I said we know next to nothing about what happened. We never will, more than likely.

I encouraged people to pray for restitution of the couple.

When Julie Anne kept claiming Saeed was an abuser (other than the 2007 assault, which is the only thing we know), I suggested that others could see problems with Naghmeh’s behavior in addition to her claims about Saeed.

I was disappointed to see that Naghmeh did not go to the airport to see Saeed arrive… after all of the prayer effort that some of us put into this and after all of her support for Saeed for years. Years. I listen to Jay Sekulow regularly and my family prayed regularly for the Abedini’s, so in some sense this was personal for us.