Women's Equality Day Challenges

The celebration of Women’s Equality Day in the U.S. tomorrow comes with a special urgency this year, 2013. Women’s rights are under attack, especially from the right wing of the Republican party, with their so-called reasoning often based in religious doctrine.

The U.S. has been marking Women’s Equality Day since 1971 when, at the urging of the late Rep. Bella Abzug (D-NY), a Congressional and then Presidential proclamation was issued designating Women’s Equality Day to commemorate the passage of the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920 that gave women the right to vote. The Day's purpose is also to continue a focus on women’s issues. Every President since 1971 has issued a Women’s Equality Day proclamation,  including this year’s proclamation by President Obama.

 On this Women’s Equality Day, both the right to vote and women’s health care are among the issues backtracking to what seems to me like the middle ages, but is probably more accurately the early 20^th century for voting and the mid-20^th century for health care. In the wake of the recent SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act, Republican-led State actions, such as curbing voting hours and requiring photo IDS, impact not only minorities and university students but also women. In addition—and more specific in its aim—health care for women is increasingly imperiled by a growing number of laws in a growing number of States aiming to get around the 1973 Roe v.Wade SCOTUS legalization of abortion. Among other things, these State actions set up impossible-to-meet requirements that result in the closing clinics which include safe and legal abortion in the health care they provide to women. The anti-abortion advocates often give biblical scripture as source for their sometimes violent actions, and for the imposition of tests such as transvaginal ultrasound, which, when performed without the patient’s consent as these proposals require, fits the definition of rape. In general, this maltreatment of women can be seen as an outcome of the interpretations and doctrines particularly in fundamentalist religions that give men dominion over women, and insist on speaking of deity in masculine/male-only language. The impact of fundamentalist religion has caused a backtracking on a trend to more egalitarian language in public prayer and references to deity. For example, I don’t remember ever hearing William Jefferson Clinton, while president, referring to deity by gender. He used the term God, but did not combine it with “he” or “Lord” or any other gendered term. This is not true of President Obama, whom I have heard use masculine pronouns when speaking of deity when he could have easily just left off the pronouns. Others seem to be following the President's example. Yesterday, in the speeches at the commemoration of the 1963 March on Washington for Civil Rights, in the prayers I heard, all god-language was male/masculine, including prayers by women. This use of exclusively masculine-gendered words for deity reinforces, empowers, enables the ongoing political actions imperiling women’s rights.

The backtracking-on-women’s-issues trend has made its way into parts of the Pagan community. A number Pagans, both women and men, use the supposedly generic term “gods” when referring to both male and female deities. Pagans can’t even make the argument that these deities are ungendered as those in Abrahamic religion try to do when they use the word God (followed by “He.”) When you use “gods” to include female deities, it disappears the female deities; a god in Paganism is widely understood to be male. This is just one of the ways that fundamentalism or right-wing thinking is influencing Pagan thought and practices among some Pagans—and again, I’m not just talking about men. I think, for the most part, this is not intentional, it is just that we are influenced by the dominant culture we live in and unconsciously adopt its practices and sometimes beliefs, though they may be somewhat disguised so that the bias is not easily recognized. It is, however, easily remedied (and I know you want to remedy this, right?) by using “gods and goddesses” alternating with “goddesses and gods”; or, when writing, god/dess; or using inclusive terms such as deities and divinities.

This Women’s Equality Day, let’s see if we can become conscious of practices in our communities that go counter to equal treatment of women. Maybe we can call it Pagan consciousness-raising—a first step to restored equality.

 

 

From Lady Liberty League About Fox News

February 18, 2013
For Immediate Release

Statement by the Lady Liberty League on Fox News

Barneveld, WI - The Lady Liberty League denounces the ignorant and unprofessional statements made by Fox News commentators this weekend. The statements, made by Fox personalities including Anna Kooiman, Clayton Morris, Tucker Carlson, and Tammy Bruce were in regards to the University of Missouri's 2011 decision to include Wiccan and other holidays, along with the holidays of other many other faiths, in that university's "Guide to Religion."

We are deeply disappointed that Fox's leadership would chose to allow such ill-informed statements on the air. The commentary of the Fox News personalities over the weekend betrayed not only deep ignorance about Paganism and Wicca but also a fundamental distain for the nature of religious diversity in the United States and the establishment clause in the US constitution.

Paganism and Wicca (not "Wiccanism" as stated by Tucker Carlson) are contemporary religious practices that include an honoring of the Divine as immanent in Nature. Nature religions are growing in significant numbers not just within the United States, but significantly in the UK, Australia, South America, and Europe. The Lady Liberty League (LLL) is a program of Circle Sanctuary founded to dispel misconceptions and combat discrimination against Pagans, Wiccans and other Nature religion practitioners.

Rev. Selena Fox, Executive Director of the Lady Liberty League said, "In 2006 and 2007 Fox News was among the media sources that covered the quest to have equal rights for Wiccan and Pagan US Military veterans, and they did so in a factual and respectful manner. We are extremely disappointed at the ill-informed and disrespectful tone of their coverage about academic accommodation of Pagan and Wiccan holidays. We hope that Fox News will adopt and stay with a policy of respect for diverse faiths and philosophies in the USA."

The Fox News personalities, and others making similar arguments, seem to assume that because a religious faith is in the minority, that it should not be accorded equal rights or respect.

What they fail to realize is that the same protections granting Pagans at public universities fair treatment are what, for example, prevents a public school teacher from telling a child that she 'isn't really a Christian' because of the way she was baptized, and which prevents the government from banning the sale of bread during Passover. In the United States our government is not allowed to favor one religious practice over another and that is a good thing for everyone. Our founders knew very well the suffering that religious wars had inflicted in Europe and they worked to ensure that their new United States would be a place where people were free to worship and still coexist with one another.

We applaud the work done by the University of Missouri and by numerous other colleges, universities and public school systems across the country, to extend respect and understanding to all religions practiced on their campus. We are disgusted by the attempt of Fox News employees to belittle their efforts and to go for a cheap laugh at the expense of people and religions they obviously do not understand. We should expect better of American journalists.

---

Guest Post: MAD

by Mama Donna Henes

(NOTE from Medusa: Mama Donna Henes has given us permission to share with you her message from the March issue of her newsletter, The Queen's Chronicles.)

I am mad. No, that doesn't begin to describe it. I am pissed. I am angry. I am irate. I am incensed. I am enraged. I am livid. I am FURIOUS.

"All men are created equal," states the Declaration of Independence. From the very beginning, women were denied equality in the this country. It has taken over two centuries for women to win the right to vote, to have alleged protection under the law, to earn 77 cents on the dollar that men are paid, and to gain control over our own bodies and destinies.

And now, nearly 250 years later, we are seeing our rights being stripped away, one by one, by mean sprited misogynistic right wing religious super- conservatives.

Several new state laws dictate that before a woman can get an abortion, she must (without her consent) be subjected to an internal sonogram by means of shoving an apparatus into her vagina and up to her uterus. I don't know about you, but I call this RAPE. Legislated, officially sanctioned rape.

Rationalizing his state-sponsored bill mandating vaginal probes, Virginia Republican Delegate Todd Gilbert declared that women already consented to being "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant."

A parallel rule would be that if a man wants a prescription for Viagra, he must undergo an anal probe or an electric shock to his penis to see whether he really can't get it up. As if this would ever in a million years happen.

The latest outrage is a Colorado bill working its way through the state legislature that would allow an employer to fire a woman if she uses contraceptives. That is, unless she can document that she takes them for health reasons and not for birth control.

While Virginia is pushing legal personhood recognition for an unfertilized egg, women, the creators and bearers of eggs are being denied our personhood. This is really scary, like something out of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

In a review, Kathleen A. Cameron describes the book as "a vision of a fictional theocratic regime that reduces the value of women to reproductive commodities. This depiction is a disturbingly accurate account of the status of women in the Middle East and other parts of
the world, [but worse,] in many ways it reflects political, legal, and cultural doctrines, ideologies, and practices [right here] in the U.S."

All this talk by the Christian Taliban about going to war with Iran is such a complete farce. Why not just make the American War on Women official and join Iran in Holy Sharia Brotherhood?

When Congress recently held hearings on birth control, the panel of invited experts giving testimony consisted of five male religious leaders.

To her credit, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) loudly demanded, "Where are the women?" before she and several other Democrats stormed out of the hearings. This, I believe was a total mistake. Better they should have stayed and created a rumpus.

The one proposed woman witness in favor of subsidized birth control, a third year law student at Georgetown University, a Catholic school, was ruled to be "not appropriate and qualified." by GOP Chairman Darrell Issa who defended the exclusion of a woman from his all-male panel on contraception.

But the outrage didn't stop there. Rush Limbaugh then excoriated her on national radio:"What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. [. . .] If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

And while Congress keeps trying to defund contraception, Representative Dan Burton (R-IN) has proposed a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. (You can't make this stuff up.)

In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

Can this war against women get any worse? Oh, yes! Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

Wisconsin just passed a law to repeal the Equal Pay Enforcement Act for women. The shocker? The bill to repeal was authored and sponsored by a woman: Rep. Michelle Litjens, (R-Oshkosh).

Another female turncoat collaborator with the enemy of women is journalist Liz Trotta, who, in a Fox News report on sexual abuse of women serving in the military, asked "Well, what did they expect?"

That same old outrage of blaming rape on the victim. Unlike short skirts and revealing blouses, combat fatigues are hardly alluring. So according to her, the mere fact of having breasts is invitation and excuse enough for molestation. Maybe we should bind our breasts. And our feet, too.

A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

Are you angry enough yet? You've heard the saying, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." Well, it is time for some serious fury! Protest the war on women.

With blessings of righteous indignation and well placed fury,
Mama Donna Henes

IWD: Politics and Religion

International Women’s Day this year – today – comes at a time when in the US, many of us feel that women’s rights, women’s health, women’s role, (add any you think missing) are under attack. From the right. From the Republican Party, which has been taken over by the radical right. From the Radical Right which has been heavily influenced by radical right Christian groups such as the Christian Dominionists , who teach that the United States must become a theocratic Christian nation that does not allow for other religious points of view. This is what underlies what some have recently called the "war on women." In the last few months we have seen this underlying cause made clear by several events in rapid succession. The Komen Fund attempted to defund breast exams – crucial to diagnosing breast cancer when it is still highly treatable. The organization under this threat was Planned Parenthood, which gives health care to women, regardless of ability to pay. Planned Parenthood has been under constant attack, pressure, call it what you want, for a number of years by organizations and politicians of the Christian right using the LIE that Planned Parenthood receives federal funds for abortions. For this non-reason, they have persisted in trying (and sometimes succeeding) in closing down Planned Parenthood facilities. A very vocal protest, backed up by the threat of withholding of funds from Komen and the monetary support of Planned Parenthood, forced the Komen Fund to backtrack on their threat. Then the Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill requiring women seeking abortions to have medically unnecessary penetrative trans-vaginal untrasound exams even if they didn't consent. Public outcry prevented Gov. McDonnell from signing the bill, but he substituted and signed a form of the bill that still requires an unnecessary medical procedure (top of the belly ultrasound). In the last month or so it has become evident that abortion is not the only objection the radical right politicians/religionists have to women’s health care. They’re against contraception too! Many of us scratched our heads over this, and then rubbed our eyes trying to wake up from a nightmare that would seem to be set in the 19th century or earlier. What’s going on? Why is this happening? Is there a tie-in with jobs being hard-to-find?  Do men resent the fact that they have to compete with women for jobs? Do they feel this "problem" would be solved if only they could keep the women "barefoot and pregnant" once more? But since that would mean less money for the household, perhaps there is a deeper, less obvious reason?

To me, in patriarchy, politics and religion are always mixed. Sometimes (like now) we are (made) conscious of it by events that make the mix obvious, and sometimes it lies just "below the radar" or in the subconscious motivations of our thoughts and actions. As I noted in a post a few years ago  many people deny or do not understand the relationship of politics and religion in history and because of this do not understand how it is interwoven at present. This despite the situation described in the previous paragraph, and despite ongoing examples in other parts of the world.  These "many people" include people who consider themselves feminists, some of whom teach courses related to women in our universities. We may have made a little progress, because there was a time when what I’ll term exclusively-political feminists did not see the relevance of religion at all. Today, in most cases in the US, both exclusively-political feminists and spiritual feminists (a term I use for spiritual-political feminists) usually agree on the problem: that Abrahamic religions have played a role in establishing patriarchal rule and their doctrines continue to play a part in sustaining misogyny. What we disagree on is the solution. Exclusively-political feminists tend to either count themselves out of any organized religion and/or be atheists. I think this is a valid personal position. But, as we can see today, it doesn’t solve the problem for our culture, for our society as a whole. Spiritual feminists point out that religion isn’t going away. It would seem that some sort of belief system that causes us to seek connection with a spiritual source or dimension is hard-wired into us. So, while atheism may be a valid path for an individual, it doesn’t solve the problem of an oppressive religious system that validates oppression of women (along with validating oppression of other groups seen as "other"). The solution that spiritual feminists see as essential is replacing oppressive religions with religions of equality. For many of us this means having female deity as primary, or imaging the divine (0r sacred) as female. We find historical justification for this, described by now in many books, and verified it seems almost daily by new archeological finds. These finds verify that in almost every culture, the divine was worshipped in female form. Anthropologists find these societies more egalitarian than those that developed after the Goddess religions were destroyed. It is no accident that Christian Dominionists attack what they call the "Queen of Heaven," which includes all female representations of the divine, including the Christian Virgin Mary. And it has become clear that what the radical right is after is the re-subjugation of women.

This International Women’s Day, in this Women’s History Month, is a good time to remind ourselves and remind others, of the importance of rooting out the misogyny in politics by going to its roots, misogyny in religion.

D.C. Demonstration Oct. 30 to Counter NAR

At Hecate's request, I'm passing along this information from a post on her blog:

DC Pagans to Hold Halloween Ceremony Countering the New Apostolic Reformation Cursing Prayer Campaign On October 30th in Lafayette Square Park

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Silver Spring, MD, October 19th, 2011---Priestesses and priests from the Washington, DC Pagan community will hold a Celebration of the Divine Feminine and Religious Freedom in Lafayette Square Park across from the White House on Sunday, October 30th, 2011, as a protest to the New Apostolic Reformation’s 51-day prayer campaign targeting Pagans, Wiccans, Witches, Druids, Heathens, and other Goddess-worshipers nationwide.

The New Apostolic Reformation is a Dominionist group of Christians preaching that all feminine forms of deity are demonic. The NAR is engaged in a 51-day campaign of imprecatory prayer to create a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the USA. Republican presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are influenced by the NAR agenda.

Reverend Barry Lynn, United Church of Christ minister and executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, “Some people think the Dominionists and the New Apostolic Reformation are a newfangled movement. I call them what they are: the Religious Right in a new gown. They’re not fooling anyone. This is the same old bunch of theocrats we’ve been dealing with for more than 40 years. It’s the same crew that believes only its narrow version of Christianity is acceptable and pleasing to God. It’s the same collection of people who believe their religion gives them the right to run everyone else’s lives.”

Rev. Lynn went on to say, “I have news for them: Wiccans and Pagans are part of the American religious mosaic, and they’re here to stay. Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison gave us religious liberty – and that means religious liberty for everyone. The followers of nature-based faiths are going to use it because they don’t want to lose it. What could be more in keeping with the great American tradition?”

Katrina Messenger, a writer, teacher, blogger, poet and Washington, DC native, will be the main celebrant in Lafayette Square Park. Ms. Messenger said, “The methods used by the NAR and other Dominionists are founded upon hate, fear, and ignorance. Their demonization of our Gods and Goddesses uses inflammatory language that can lead to violence and discrimination against followers of minority religions. We have choices in how to respond to this threat to our freedom and our faiths. Many are resorting to prayer, some to writing letters, and some to defensive strategies. We decided to honor the Queen of Heaven, the Goddess Inanna, in a public space, and demonstrate the very freedoms the Dominionists seek to destroy.” Ms. Messenger is the founder of Connect DC and the Reflections Mystery School in Petworth.

Event organizer Caroline Kenner is a Washington, DC-born shamanic healer and teacher who now lives in Silver Spring, Maryland. “Nationally, many in our community are appalled by the scurrilous lies about our Goddesses spread by the New Apostolic Reformation. We Pagans are proud American citizens entitled to all the religious freedom granted by the Founders of this country in our Constitution. We are dismayed by the hate-filled rhetoric the New Apostolic Reformation uses, and we wish to show the public that our Goddesses are beneficent and peaceful deities.”

The event in Lafayette Square Park begins at noon and ends at 5pm on Sunday, October 30th, Samhain eve to many Pagans, leading into one of the most holy days of the Pagan year. “Samhain, or Halloween, is the Feast of the Ancestors in some of our Pagan religions. We will invoke the Founding Fathers and Mothers of our nation during our ceremony, along with a multitude of Goddesses from pantheons both ancient and modern. Among our Goddesses will be Lady Liberty and Columbia, the Goddess who stands guard atop the Capitol Building,” said Ms. Kenner. “The New Apostolic Reformation people would topple Columbia from Her pinnacle, and rename DC the District of Christ.”

There will be a number of people offering prayers during the ritual, including a Unitarian Universalist minister and celebrants from several Pagan faiths. After the religious ceremony, there will be drumming, dancing, chanting and energy raising designed to protect people in all fifty states and DC who support freedom of religious belief and practice for everyone. People of all faiths or none are welcome to join the event.

Sacred Space, an annual conference on metaphysics, mysticism and magick, now in its 22nd year, is the sponsor of the celebration in Lafayette Square Park on October 30th. Supporting organizations include Connect DC, Reflections Mystery School and Gryphons Grove School of Shamanism. Individual supporters include Washington, DC Pagan bloggers Hecate Demeter, Literata and David Salisbury.

Selena Fox and Dr. Bob Hieronimous in Support of Libertas

This evening Selena Fox was guest on the Dr. Bob Hieronimous Show on 21st Century Radio broadcasting out of Baltimore (AM). Her topic: "Goddess of Freedom: From Libertas to Lady Liberty." If you missed the show, you can listen to it in the radio station's archives on 21stcenturyradio.com . Hieronomous has also posted an article titled, "Lady Liberty Needs Your Help" on the radio station's website. An article by Selena Fox on the history of these Goddess representations appears as a "Note" on the Circle Sanctuary's Facebook Page (you don't have to have a Facebook account to access it). The broadcast and articles are part of the response of Pagans, and people of other spiritual paths interested in preserving religious freedom, to the crusade titled DC40 and other activities of the New Apostolic Reformation and other Christian Dominionists who seek to establish a theocracy in the United States. One of their goals, for example, is to turn the District of Columbia into the "District of Christ."

How Women Get Erased from History

UPDATE: (5/12 10:13 p.m. but unable to post until 5/13 1:59 p.m. because Blogger was down to resolve some issues) Looks like someone took Hecate's suggestion (see her comment below) or maybe it's that great minds think alike... In any event, freewilliamsburg.com has published the pic in question with only the two women, because, according to Free Williamsburg, having the men in the photo was "too "scintillating to handle." WTG Free Williamsburg! (And tip of the hat to Rachel Maddow, who closed with this item on her MSNBC's program last night [i.e., Thursday night].

An ultraorthodox Hasidic Yiddish newspaper, Der Tzitung, has "photoshopped" out Hillary Clinton and Audrey Thomason from the well-known White House photo of people watching the raid on the Bin Laden compound. Clinton is U.S Secretary of State; Thomason is Director for Counter-Terrorism. Der Tzitung is located in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, NY. The newspaper says it was following its policy of not showing women in photos with men because it can be sexually suggestive. For more info with pics, see The New York Magazine, and The Jewish Week, which is critical of Der Tzitung. This is of course just the most recent instance in a long tradition of various religions finding ways to erase women from history.

REVIEW: Baigent's Book On Fundamentalism in Abrahamic Religions

Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World by Michael Baigent (HarperOne, 2009), hardback.

Michael Baigent is probably best known to many readers as co-author of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which in part formed the basis for Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code. Baigent is author of three other books on religion, and co-author of seven others on metaphysics and religion, including, The Inquisition.

First let me get out of the way my objection to the word "The" in the subtitle,"The Three Great Religions...." By specifying "The" the publisher (and my bet is that the subtitle wording is the publisher’s not originally Baigent’s) implies inaccurately that there are only three great religions. It would have been far better to leave off the word "The," so that the title means three of the Great Religions (I know, for some the word "great" may be problematical, but if we think of it as meaning "large" rather than "wonderful" we can get by). Even better would have been "The Three Abrahamic Religions..." but my guess is that although Baigent uses the term "Abrahamic"(meaning religions that can be traced to the patriarch Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam) in this book, it wasn’t used in the subtitle because it is not yet immediately understood by the general public.

Okay, moving right along: It’s important to keep in mind when reading and evaluating this book—and Baigent does endeavor to make it clear—that he is not writing about the belief system and actions of all people in Abrahamic religions, but rather a small segment of each of these religions which have a growing influence not only on religion but on politics and world events. Baigent examines each of these fringe groups in great detail and gives an overall view of what they have in common: they are anti-democratic, subordinate women, want to establish theocracy, are messianic, believe that the end of the world is at hand and that this is a good thing, and are militant—with some factions embracing militarism and other forms of violence to achieve their goals which, in Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, include world domination.

Baigent sees the geographical nexus of Abrahamic fundamentalism as Jerusalem. He begins the book with a map of the city as well as a very helpful timeline in 2 parts: "Israel and the Middle East to the End of the Crusades," which begins at the 4th Millennium B.C. and ends in A.D. 1291 (his abbreviations), and "Middle East, 1917 to Present," which ends in 2006. The book also includes, in the center, 8 pages of color photos of places and people in the Middle East and southern Europe, including the Dome of the Rock and Temple Mount, an "enigmatic" circular temple in Megiddo, a small temple dedicated to Isis in the ruins of Pompeii, and a modern artist’s portrayal of the Christian fundamentalist idea of "the Rapture."

To better understand Baigent’s discussion of Jewish fundamentalism, which exists mostly in Israel, it’s useful to know that Jews in Israel define themselves as either secular (in Hebrew, hiloni) or traditional (masorti). Other terms Israelis use to describe this difference are "religiously observant" (dati) or "not observant" (lo dati), and though there are some Israelis who align themselves with the more moderate Conservative and the liberal Reform types of Judaism, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate recognizes as legitimate only rabbis ordained in the Orthodox tradition and only they are permitted to perform Jewish marriages and grant divorces. In addition to just plain Orthodox, this includes rabbis who are ultra-Orthodox (haradi) and ultra-Orthodox-Nationalists (hardal). If you want a fuller explanation and more background, here are some links: NY Times article on the ultra-Orthodox in Jerusalem, ending with an anecdote about women having to sit in the back of the bus; Library of Congress (LC) 1988 article on Varieties of Israeli Judaism ; a more recent Wikipedia article, Religion in Israel.

Baigent’s investigation of Jewish fundamentalism in Israel begins with an examination of the belief that the existence of a perfect red heifer is necessary before the messiah can appear (and the "end times" proceed). He traces this back to the biblical descriptions of the sacrifice of a red heifer as part of purification rituals. He also relates it to the creation of the forbidden golden calf by the Israelites while waiting for Moses to come down from Mt. Sinai. (Some spiritual feminists have for some time wondered whether the golden calf was a Goddess symbol. A "perfect red heifer"–a young cow who hasn’t yet given birth–raises the similar questions about conscious or unconscious connection to what we are now certain was a history of Goddess worship among the Israelites and Judeans. Asphodel Long has written that the "cow and calf are universally a sign of the mother goddess," and are associated with the Hebrew Goddess Asherah.)

An ultra-Orthodox group in Israel, which Baigent considers fundamentalist, called the Temple Institute, is intent on re-building the Jewish Temple and reinstituting blood sacrifices, which were eliminated by rabbinic Jewry centuries ago. The Temple Institute has been trying to breed a perfect red heifer. In this endeavor they have had with the financial help of fundamentalist Christian groups. They thought they had achieved the feat, but uh-oh, the heifer grew a white tail. Apparently this breeding program continues, including at a least one place in the Louisiana, according to Baigent, but has been unsuccessful. Baigent also looks into other fundamentalist Jewish groups in Israel whose intentions include eliminating the Muslim Dome of the Rock at the Temple Mount so that the Jewish Temple can be rebuilt. Baigent notes that despite Islamic contentions to the contrary, "many Jewish people do not share the view of the fundamentalists." Baigent also looks into a number of other groups and individuals he identifies with Jewish fundamentalism, including (and this was a surprise to me) the late American physicist and Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, among whose works are books on Jewish mysticism, including Kabbalah. Baigent thinks the following 1976 quote by Kaplan demonstrates his fundamentalism: "In Jerusalem, the Jewish people will thus become established as the spiritual and moral teachers of all mankind" and the Foundation Stone (now covered by the Dome of the Rock) is "the very center of creation" because it is "the place where all spiritual forces come together to influence the physical world." Baigent says Kaplan's view demonstrates "breathtaking arrogance" because it leave no room for other religions or spiritual systems.

In a chapter on "Armageddon," Baigent begins to look into fundamentalist Christian beliefs, including opposition to the theory of evolution, and the battle of Armageddon. He points out the absurdities in the Creationist arguments and the numerous inconsistencies when Christians try to apply the biblical book, "Revelation," to future occurrences. In the next two chapters, Baigent gives a clear and minute explanation of Revelation–and if you’ve ever wondered what in the world Revelation is all about this material will be very helpful to you. Along the way, he brings into the discussion King Arthur and the Grail legends, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Islamic beliefs about the "end times." There is also an extensive discussion of the significance of the number 7 in Ancient Near East cultures including not only the Hebrews, but also the Mesopotamians (including mention of Inanna/Ishtar) and Egyptians. Regarding the Revelation description of "A woman, adorned with the sun, standing on the moon, with twelve stars on her head for a crown" (Rev. 12:1), Baigent does not get into any relevance to ancient goddesses but instead relates the image to the Virgin Mary, who, through this description, he says, "assumes the role of mother of the entire messianic community—in other words, the Christians." Baigent also explores Revelation’s dragon, or Leviathan, as being an allusion to a Canaanite creation deity. (Many Goddessians consider that the Leviathan was originally the Goddess Tiamat, who was then demonized as the Leviathan and slain. [See Asphodel P. Long’s In A Chariot Drawn By Lions, and Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology, among others].) Baigent convincingly concludes, after deciphering the number of the Beast (666) that the author of Revelation, whom he calls John of Patmos, didn’t intend his scripture to be a prediction of future events, but rather a tract against the Romans of his own time, and that John meant Revelation to be taken metaphorically, not literally.

What about The Rapture? You know, that time right before Armageddon, when fundamentalist Christians say if you’re one of them, even if you’re dead, you get gathered up bodily, lifted up off the Earth to heaven, while below cars and planes you occupied crash, meals you were cooking boil and burn, etc., and that this comes before Armageddon and the subsequent thousand year rule of Jesus. Baigent finds some possibly-related Christian scriptural material; for example, Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) which says in part:

At the trumpet of God, the voice of the archangel will call out the command and the Lord himself will come down from heaven; those who died in Christ will be the first to rise, and then those of us who are still alive will be taken up in the clouds....

but Baigent finds no specific biblical reference to an event called "the rapture," nor to the sequence of events Christian fundamentalists associate with it. Baigent concludes that origin of the rapture scenario can be traced to the 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States, and gives what he considers to be the two sources. But he maintains that

the fully formed picture of the rapture with its crashing cars and airplanes and its chosen ones vanishing up to heaven where they can view the horrors from ringside seats...was fashioned as recently as the 1950s and was first launched to a large public audience by Hal Lindsey in 1970 with his book The Late Great Planet Earth.

In the chapters "Fighting for God," and "Planet Rushdoony" Baigent discusses world figures through whom the Armageddon/Rapture scenario has become incorporated into world politics. These include (but are not limited to) US Presidents Reagan, Bush I and II, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, several members of US Congress, various US military higher-ups, Ron Paul, and Sarah Palin. He decodes the code-words some U.S. politicians use to send signals to their fundamentalist base, and claims that a layer of evangelical Christian ministry has been placed on top of the already existing US armed forces military chaplains program. His explanations are fully detailed, as is his discussion of the Christian fundmentalist groups known as Reconstructionists and Dominionists and groups and people related to them. Baigent writes:

Those who have allied themselves with Reconstructionist ideas share in the plan to create, firstly in the United States, a theocratic state where democracy and the rule of manmade law no longer function....They want these laws [based on the 613 laws of Moses] to replace those of the U.S. Constitution...as well as all state law or those determined by the decisions of the Supreme Court....And they want a heavily armed theocracy, since they hold that a crucial task of the U.S. government is to maintain armed forces that are trained to conquer "in the name of Jesus."

What is their rationale for advocating this?

Christian Reconstructionists hold that Jesus will not return until the Christian church has completely taken over all governments and the world has been converted to Christianity.

Baigent writes that the late Rev. Rousas John Rushdoony, founder of the Chaldedon Foundation, a Christian Reconstructionist group, called for "death without mercy" for idolators (that would be, by their definition, most of us), and quotes others in this movement who have made extremely misogynist and anti-Jewish statements. He compares the Rushdoony mindset to the European Inquisition, discussing Malleus Maleficarum, the justification for killing many women for witchcraft. Baigent describes this text as "written by men who...were completely terrified by women, especially pretty women."

Next, Baigent explains the history of and difference among various factions of mainstream Islam and then zeros in on Islamic fundamentalism which, like Christian fundamentalism is misogynist, anti-democratic and intent on world domination in a time they term the Caliphate, which begins with the appearance of the messiah, whom they call the Mahdi. Baigent gives much detail about the various Islamic fundamentalist groups, their leaders and their beliefs.

He then begins wrapping up the book by comparing the attitudes and beliefs of the three Abrahamic fundamentalist groups and seeking some solace in groups within Abrahamic religions, such as the Sufis, that give hope for a more peaceful, balanced version of these religions. Yet in the closing chapter, "Welcome to the Gods," he wonders if monotheism leads inevitably to the views and actions manifested by religious fundamentalism. It seems to me, though, that the view that monotheism is the culprit is refuted both by his own description of the policies and actions of the polytheistic Romans and by contemporary fundamentalism in polytheistic religions, such as Hinduism.

IMO, the fundamentalism Baigent describes is at root motivated not so much by theology but more by the quest for territory and power, bolstered by tribalism and xenophobia. Theology is used (and twisted) to justify territorial conquest. Fundamentalist theological literalism prospers when people, many of whom have difficulty understanding metaphor, are comforted by easy answers to complicated theological (other other) questions. From its presence in polytheistic religions, I would conclude that fundamentalism is not based on how many deities are worshiped, but the on the nature of the deity(ies). Are the deities warriors or war-like? Do they dominate, or seek to dominate humans? the natural world? one another (if multiple deities)? Is one gender and type of sexuality favored over others? If so, then it matters not whether the religion has one deity or many, it is bound to end up in disputes, wars, and other power struggles. Baigent gets into this a bit, writing:

Surely it is obvious that the concept of "God" has long been misunderstood: this idea of an elderly father god in the sky.

He calls for "a new vision of God" that isn’t a vengeful, jealous warrior. I would have liked to see this lead you know where, but instead it drifts into a brief discussion of the "inner understanding" of various religions including Roman Catholic saints, Greek hero cults and mystery traditions, ancient Egyptian beliefs, and esoteric Christianity and Judaism, including Kabbalah and the Hermetic traditions. He writes:

For the outer popular understanding a god or goddess is important as an authority figure, a source of morality, justice and social harmony, one who can impose fearsome sanctions on those who transgress and promise gifts for those in favor. For the secretive inner understanding, such an authority figure is irrelevant, all gods and goddesses are focusing and symbolizing different expressions of the one divinity.

First, it seems to me his seeing many deities as "different expressions of one divinity," is itself monotheistic. Call me an panentheist, but rather than using the word one, as in "the One" I’m more comfortable with the term "All" as in "the All." Second, not all polytheists, even in "the popular outer understanding," see their deities as authority figures who impose sanctions. Most Goddessians, in particular, have rejected this view. But I see an even more practical problem with his idea: the "inner" trads he enumerates are not likely to be adopted by the people who are involved in fundamentalist religion, and in the instance of Abrahamic "inner understandings," such as the various versions of Kabbalah/Cabala/Qabalah, many of the same problems that lead to fundamentalist thought, such as hierarchy, opposition of the physical and the spiritual, and misogynist representations of feminine/female, still exist (for more on this, see Goddess Spirituality for the 21st Century: From Kabbalah to Quantum Physics).

Baigent seems to be suggesting that the problems posed by fundamentalism can be solved on a metaphysical/theoretical/philosophical level. Though this approach may be effective in the long run, I think it is too late in the game to rely on it alone. Rather the resolution, which needs to be as immediate as possible, is best attempted on a pragmatic level. What is needed, imo, is for us to be more aware of the issues and actions surrounding fundamentalism (a good first step is reading this book), to take (hopefully nonviolent) steps to make sure that the belligerent fringe doesn’t gain more political-military power, and to knuckle down and deal with the disputes in a secular, very down-to-earth, concrete manner to insure human rights and equality to all involved.

Despite my quibbles, I consider Racing Toward Armageddon a valuable book, packed with very helpful information, to help us understand the rise of religious fundamentalism and encourage our thinking on how to deal with its most insidious and militant aspects.

TAGS: news book reviews fundamentalism Abrahamic religions Armageddon Michael Baigent

Blessing Barack?

Those of us who supported Barack Obama’s candidacy are trying to come to grips with his selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration. (I’m not even going to get into why, with Constitutional separation of church and state that does not allow even silent prayer in public schools, we permit out-loud prayers to deities many of us don’t worship at Presidential inaugurations, meetings of Congress,etc. But I think that’s something that also warrants attention.)

Obama supporters have put forth many opinions about the Warren fiasco. Some of them decry Warren’s selection. Others, acting as "apologists" for the selection, say that Obama simply likes Warren and it has nothing to do with religion or politics. Still others maintain this is part of Obama trying to look like a centrist so he can get enough support to govern as a progressive (see dailykos.com and streetprophets.com for these and other arguments).

At this point I think the best that can be said is the selection of Warren was a gigantic faux pas. (Why do I start thinking in French when writing this post? Faux pas, loosely translated means klutzy mistake--mixing in a little Yiddish is grounding, lol.).

Warren’s opposition to anything resembling gay rights has gotten the most attention from those who oppose his selection. For some reason mainstream media and blogs don't give as much attention to Warren's opposition to equality within het marriage (he preaches that the husband is head of the family–oh, and btw, men [by which he means straight men] are head of the church), and to his opposition to legal abortion.

UPDATE 1, 12/21: Athana of Radical Goddess Theology left a comment below about Warren's apparent ties to Christian Dominionism. She's posted about it on her blog and I think this info is important enough to include here the link to her post , and to the Newsvine post, which is her source.

Briefly, Obama’s excuse for choosing Warren for the honor of giving the invocation is that this is part of "change" and is his way of being inclusive.

This is certainly is not what I expected when I voted for "change." Rather, to me it seems to be a political attempt to win over (or reward) the Christian right. Didn’t we have enough of that the last 8 years? "Reaching out" and/or trying to appear a centrist to further a progressive agenda (homophobia, anti-abortion, and subordination of women is centrist????) may have their place, but that place is not at the inauguration of a President and Vice President whose party platform is the opposite of Warren's views. If you want to reach out, a more appropriate way of doing so is to have meetings–interfaith meetings wouldn’t be a bad idea–to discuss different points of view. If you personally like the fellow, set up private sessions, have him pray over you to your soul’s content. But it’s NOT appropriate to give one of the most prominent spots on the program to a minister whose views are repugnant to most of those who supported your candidacy.

The invitation has been issued and cannot be taken back, we are told. So can nothing then be done to rectify this mistake?

I’m not sure–I don’t know what the protocol is for these things and I want to say first and most emphatically that I applaud the selection of Rev. Joseph Lowery to give the benediction (and would have also applauded if he had been selected for the invocation). But since the invocation invitation to Warren apparently cannot be taken back, what if you could add another blesser–perhaps have two people share the responsibility of giving the invocation?

Before we attempt an answer, let’s first look at what we have now in terms of "inclusiveness": Giving the blessings in this inauguration are two men, both Christian–in fact, both Protestant Christians. That’s inclusive?

If we could add a third blesser and we really want to be inclusive, we should look for a woman who is clergy in a non-Christian religion. If she's a lesbian, so much the better. Selecting a lesbian to be the other invocation-giver would send a clear message that Warren’s presence is truly meant to be inclusive and not an endorsement of his views. If it’s not possible to get a non-Christian woman clergy at this late date, then you should try for a woman clergy in a religion that, while it may include some Christianity, also honors other paths (for example, Unitarian-Universalism, Ethical Culture, Unity), or if that’s not possible, at least a Christian clergy who is a woman. Plenty of these pop into mind: ordained Protestant ministers, Episcopal priests, even Roman Catholic women priests (yes, they exist).

Does anyone think this has a chance of being done?

No, I don’t think so either. Actually, it is what should have been done in the first place. After selecting Lowery for the benediction, it should have been clear that to achieve inclusiveness, at the very least the invocation should be given by woman clergy–and to really achieve balance it would be preferable that she be non-Christian.

As it stands now the Warren faux pas dims what was a bright star, and the promise of "change" seems to be shifting to "plus ça change, c'est plus la même chose."

Yet at this season of hope and growing light, I will still hope for enlightenment.

UPDATE 2, 12/21: Until we can have enlightenment, perhaps something lighter will do? See possible snark, "Leaked Rick Warren Invocation" on Huffington Post.

UPDATE: 12/23: John Aravosis of America Blog reported yesterday that Warren's Saddleback Church's website has removed its statement that "someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be welcome at Saddleback." Aravosis' story shows the Saddleback site before and after the edit.
Will this flickering candle stay lit after the inauguration?

TAGS:news Barack Obama Inauguration politics and religion Rick Warren women and religion

Politics & Religion & Marriage

I’m often surprised by the response people give when I ask them whether they agree or disagree with the following statement:

"Historically, there is not much of a relationship between politics and religion."

(Do you agree with this statement? Just for fun, write down your response before reading the rest of this post.)

Even after the last 8 years in U.S. politics, even after the Presidential campaigns of 2000, 2004, and 2008, most people I ask say this statement is true. I wonder if they neglected to read some essential history texts, such as those about the Inquisition, or World War II– or even the Bible. I try to give them a break and assume that they are interpreting the statement to mean that there shouldn’t be a relationship (rather than that there isn’t) between politics and religion – but really, that’s a stretch, isn’t it?

When I was a child, my parents told me it was impolite to discuss politics, religion, or sex at social - particularly family - gatherings. My guess is this "rule" has pretty much fallen by the wayside in the ensuing years, but in case it’s still supposed to be observed at your get-togethers, maybe you’ll read something in this post that will come in handy for etiquette-breaking at holiday gatherings this season.

It is very clear from even a casual look at world history, especially in Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East, that politics and religion go hand in glove from as far back as we can go – the Neolithic where the evidence is mostly archeological – to the present day. Evidence from the Neolithic shows that the most likely socio-political structure was something approaching egalitarian councils of consensus, while religion was centered around female deities (sometimes ancestors) and a high value was placed on peaceful solutions to problems. (See books by Marija Gimbutas and Riane Eisler for starters.) Although there have been some recent writings attempting to discredit these findings, such books appear to be based largely on misconceptions and are far from convincing when submitted to thorough scholarly scrutiny

In many early societies that have been investigated, this time of peace, cooperation, and Goddess worship is followed by the imposition, usually through violence, of socio-political systems that diminished the rights of women, setting men to rule over them in their families, and replacing cooperative councils with hierarchical rulers (e.g., kings on Earth, and a King/Father God in Heaven).

As the centuries slid by, just a few of the instances of the strong linking of religion and politics included the Christian Crusades against Islam; the European Inquisition, which targeted non-Christians, including those who claimed to have converted to Christianity (usually Roman Catholicism) and during which those accused of being "witches" (regardless of whether they themselves claimed they were witches) were killed if they (inevitably) failed to pass no-win tests to prove they weren’t; the conflict between Queen Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots; the the quest for "religious freedom" that played a large part in driving the European invasion of North America; and World War II, in which Germanic ruler committed genocide against anyone he considered "non-Aryan," or otherwise different. These included, but were not limited to Jews, Roma ("Gypsies"), homosexuals, and any persons accused of supporting or sympathizing with them.

Books and other materials on feminism and religion since the 1970s in the U.S, (see especially those by Starhawk, Mary Daly and Riane Eisler) point out the difference between two sociopolitical-religious models sometimes called "power-over" and "power-with." The "power-over" paradigm is hierarchical, settles disputes by fear or force, and is usually accompanied by misogyny, male-only or male-dominant deities, and the glorification of war. It is this paradigm that has been dominant (!) through much of written history in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and, after the European invasion, the Americas. The "power-with" paradigm was, as far as we can tell, present in the Neolithic and possibly survived in some areas of the Middle East until 5000 - 3500 BCE, and may have survived in a few indigenous cultures elsewhere to the present day.

It seems to me that the three U.S Presidential elections in the 21st Century exhibit the contemporary conflict between these two paradigms. The power-over paradigm resulted in the victory, (either by actual votes or by voting "irregularities," a type of force – choose your interpretation) in 2000 and 2004. Note the significant role that religion, especially fundamentalist Christianity, and religion-related social issues such as abortion and gay rights, played in those elections. "Power-over" came into even sharper focus during the Dubya administration, a time marked by glorification of war and backlash against feminism and science (including the environmental "Earth" sciences), and btw, the near disappearance of degendered "god" language in public discourse (for example, as far as I can remember, President Bill Clinton never used a gendered pronoun or noun when talking about "God." But with Dubya and eventually others, including many Democrats speaking during the Bush fils administration, it was always God "he" and "Lord" and "Father.") With the election of Barack Obama, it appears the people have chosen the shared-power paradigm, as the President Elect’s sociopolitical approach appears to be more of what Eisler would call a "partnership" model than a power-over model. Though he is careful to be gender inclusive when talking about humans, it remains to be seen whether Obama will catch on about the god language....

Now what about that vote for Proposition 8 in California revoking the right of gays to marry? How does that fit in?

I begin my answer with another question: Have you noticed that when pressed to show how marriage between two people of the same sex hurts their heterosexual marriage those who oppose gay marriage seem stumped? They hem and haw a lot; sometimes they digress, maintaining that, according to the Bible, marriage is supposed to be between "one man and one woman." But even this argument won’t stand up – most marriages portrayed in the Bible are between one man and several women. That’s right – the patriarchs, from Abraham through at least Solomon were polygamists having multiple wives and sometimes wives and concubines. (So the original Mormons got this one right? How ironic is it that much of the opposition to Prop 8 is from Mormons....)

If people can’t come up with an example of how same-sex marriage threatens their heterosexual union, why are they nevertheless so bothered, so enraged, so scared by it?

Because it exposes the true nature of, the original reason for, marriage: to establish power-over, to assert ownership. Marriage originally had nothing to do with romantic love or sexual attraction. It had to do with forming alliances between families, tribes, and later nations. A dowry (usually money) was commonly transferred from the bride’s family to the groom’s. In addition, the marriage gave the groom and his family ownership rights to the bride’s property and in some cases, especially early on, to the bride herself. This history is partly why second-wave feminists in the 60s and 70s became disenchanted with the institution of marriage. Another other part is that practices and assumptions that began with the dowry/property model still persisted into the 20th century. To some extent, het marriage in the US has become more equal than it was 20-30 years ago – but for many, still not equal enough. For example, although most people drop the promise to "obey" from the wedding vows, in Christian weddings the bride is still led down the aisle on the arm of her father or other male family member and then "given away" (or "given in marriage') to the groom. This giving-away is a symbolic remnant of the earlier marriage property transfer.

Extending the right to marry to people of the same sex exposes marriage’s origins in the power-over model. In a het marriage, we know "who’s wearing the pants" and "who’s on top" (sometimes literally). It’s supposed to be the man, right? If two people of the same sex marry, who gets given away (represents the property)? Who has the power? I know this may be difficult to get your head around, but people who oppose gay marriage expect the man to be in charge. If there is no man in a marriage – or if there are two men in a marriage – gollygeewhillikers, who’s in charge?

With so much baggage associated with het marriage why model gay marriage on it? Why not take the opportunity to lessen its importance by establishing civil unions for everyone, both gay and straight, as the state-defined legal entity? Why not change marriage from a state-defined entity to one defined–and variable–according to the religion of those being joined?

One answer is that it probably would take a lot more work to make this change than to allow gays an equal right to marriage as it now exists. But I’ll put the question out there anyway as something to think about: Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to have civil unions for everyone and leave the definition of who can "marry" whom up to religious institutions? In this model, it would be the civil union that would confer the rights now allowed (in most states) only to het marriages. Marriage would be a religious formality. It would work something like this: A couple, straight or gay, who wanted to form a civil union, would go to the court house (or wherever that jurisdiction specifies) and get a "license" and be joined in civil union by a civil official (judge, justice of the peace, etc.,) Religions and denominations would define what "marriage" is according to their religion, and who they are willing to join in "marriage." If a couple also wanted a "marriage" in addition to their civil union, they would find clergy to perform the religious ceremony. That way, the churches can define who can "marry," but they have nothing to say about what rights a union provides. The legal joining would be the civil union, not the (religious) marriage. The religious/marriage ceremony would carry with it no legal rights for either straights or gays. This change, as I see it, would accomplish at least two things: (1) get rid of the baggage carried by "marriage" and free up the joining of two persons to be whatever power structure they (or they and their religion) agree on;(2) give everyone, both gay and straight, rights that are the same and equal.

And, btw, the separation of civil and religious ceremonies has been standard in some European countries for some time. Another irony–more separation of church and state in countries with official state religions than in the US, which supposedly has no official religion.

TAGS:news history Presidential elections politics and religion marriage and feminism paradigm shift gay marriage

Palin & Religion

Concerns about the effect US Republican Veep candidate Sarah Palin’s religious affiliations might have on a McCain/Palin administration – or, even worse, should she ascend to the Presidency – are being expressed by many bloggers. The congregation of The Assembly of God church with which Palin is connected in Alaska is known to have beliefs connected with Christian Reconstructionism , "Third Wave" Christianity, and Dominionism. The latter takes its name from the exhortation in Genesis for "man" to have "dominion" over the Earth. According to some accounts , the Dominionists take this further, believing that God wants believers in (a certain type of?) Christianity to have dominion over people of other faiths, and has as one of its aims, establishing a Christian theocracy in the USA, with militarism and violence part of the picture. Let me say at the outset, that although it’s known that people in Palin's church advocate this and the other beliefs, what’s not known is to what extent Palin believes and acts on these. This would make an excellent question for a reporter to ask her – should the McCain campaign ever allow her to answer reporters’ questions.

There are at least two sets of beliefs adopted by Palin’s AoG church that readers of this blog might want to examine further. First, is the connection between Pastor Thomas Muthee , who, looking for the cause of a Kenyan village’s problems that included an increase in car crashes, pointed the finger at a woman in the village whom he accused of witchcraft, eventually causing the woman to flee for her safety. This is the aspect of Palin’s religious connections that has been most widely covered in the mainstream media. Palin credits Muthee's praying over her, with being largely responsible for her being elected Governor of Alaska. Palin has praised him for his "prayer" in which rather than ask God to help Palin win, Muthee tells God to clear the way for Sarah to come into political power. Update: An additional instance of Muthee praying to protect Palin from "witchcraft" was reported shortly after this post was written. See AP article linked below.

I'm not aware of there being much, if any MSM discussion about another set of beliefs, possibly because of their complexity. But I think this is of interest to readers of this blog. Dominionists/Christian Reconstructionists/"Third Wave" Christians conflate the "Queen of Heaven" against whom the prophet Jeremiah rails in the Hebrew scriptures, with "Diana" (aka "Isis") of Ephesus, and with Mary, Mother of Jesus (apparently because she was called "Queen of Heaven" extra-biblically by the Catholic church). All these they lump together as being demonic Diana, the enemy of Dominionist Christians.

Here are some links to more on all of this (which will lead you to even more....):
Dark Christianity--many posts, the most recent to date on Sept. 24
Wild Hunt Blog--several articles, latest Sept 18:"Update:Palin's Anti-Pagan Co-Religionists"
Daily Kos--"You Tube Censors Viral Video On Palin's churches"
Street Prophets--"Voodoo Palin...."
Street Prophets--"Sarah Palin:Daimonizomai & Belief in Powerful Demon Possession"
Starhawk on WoPo "On Faith"
Radical Goddess Theology--"Curled My Hair"
Alternet.org--"Weird Theology in Wasilla: A Look Inside Sarah Palin's Pentecostal Church" (includes discussion of anti-Goddess aspect)
AP: "Palin once blessed to be free of 'witchcraft' "

TAGS:news Sarah Palin Elections Dominionism Thomas Muthee Christian Reconstruction Queen of Heaven

Make Love AND War?

The feminist blogosphere is steaming with responses to (and with) an article in the Nov. 27 issue of The Nation (yes, it's common for mass circulation magazines to pre-date issues). Before I add my views to the pot, I'll catch you up on what others have been saying.

The Nation's article, "Arrows for War" by Kathryn Joyce describes a Christian group called "Quiverfulls." Joyce says the group's aim is to produce as many babies as possible so they can grow an army to fight enemies such as Muslims, liberals, progressives and feminists. It's not unusual for the wives to bear more than 10 children--indeed status seems to be related to the number of children produced. Joyce says that in a book that inspires the Quiverfulls, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, author Mary Pride argues that "feminism is a religion in its own right, one that is inherently incompatible with Christianity." Joyce shares the following quote by Mary Pride:

"Feminism is a totally self-consistent system aimed at rejecting God's role for men."

Echidne over at Echidne of the Snakes in a Nov. 13 post, "The Womb Wars II" writes that the Quiverfills

have decided that a literal reading of the Bible requires them to have as many children as possible. Contraception is evil and large families are needed as the arrows in the next Womb War....
In the preparations for this war the men in the family are the commanders and women are the privates who are expected to make the children who are the weapons and ammunition. It's a breeding war, and for it to work the women privates must be willing to obey the orders of their commanders. You can guess how that comes about: by telling women that God is the only power who has a right to decide when they will have children and God works in mysterious ways, largely through the sex drives of their husbands....

At the Pandagon blogger Amanda Marcotte, in her Nov.10 post, "Reminder: The anti-choice movement is genocidal" (which has elicited more than 100 comments) writes:

It cannot be stated firmly enough, but organized opposition to abortion rights stems directly from the belief that women should not be able to limit the number of births they have, and the invocation of the sacredness of fetal life is a post hoc justification.

If you want to read an opinion on Quiverfulls from a blogger, Heart, on Womanspace , who used to be inside this movement (or one similar to it) and was "ex-communicated," check out her Nov. 14 post, "I Name the Patriarchs, Part I, The Truth About 'Full Quiver' Families."

Before I get to the spiritual feminist part, I want to ask a practical question: What makes Quiverfull folks think these babies they're popping out like there's no tomorrow will grow up to support their point of view and fight their wars? How many Vietnam era "draft dodgers" came from families that supported the war? How many Pagans do you know who come from Pagan families? I have 2 friends (1 from a family of 3 kids, the other an only child) who married people from families that had at least 10 children and were originally Roman Catholic. By the time Mother-in-law #1 had borne 10 kids she and her husband left the Church and became liberal Christians and feminists. The 10 kids in this family are now on all sorts of religious paths, none of them Roman Catholic, including one who converted to Judaism. After Mother-in-law #2 had 10 children she and hubby left the Catholic Church for evangelical Protestantism. Their children are also on a variety of spiritual paths, none of them Catholic, and some atheistic or agnostic.

My guess is that the Quiverfulls' aims, as extreme and abhorrent as they seem, may come as no surprise to spiritual feminists. It's no shock to me that religions that refuse women equal participation and continue to empower men only, by representing the Divine as male only, should fight to keep control of women's bodies. And you can expect them to continue to use Biblical texts to do this.

Why do the women continue to cooperate? I think the answer is complicated, but one reason certainly is that the texts that they use to justify this oppression are considered sacrosanct in our society--even by some so-called progressives who still don't quite get that a society's major religious beliefs influence their social systems and their politics. I'll probably blog more about that at a later date, but I want to set something straight about contemporary Goddess beliefs. I've heard some people claim that because those who honor the Goddess or Great Mother apparently value fertility, that they expect them to be anti-abortion. Let me state this loud and clear: THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF THOSE OF US WHO HONOR GODDESS ARE PRO-CHOICE.

Perhaps the confusion arises from old-school archeologists who want to label archeological finds of Goddess objects "fertility cult figures." Sure, ancient Goddesses had babies--they had/have all the biological functions of women. But this was not their only function. The Triple Goddess honored by many modern Goddessians includes a Mother figure, but this Trinity also has a figure called the Maiden, who is independent, sometimes studious, sometimes atheletic, and has sex for no other reason than to give herself pleasure. We also have an older-woman figure, usually called the Crone, who is beyond child-bearing years and is honored for her wisdom. In addition, (and this sometimes gets lost in the shuffle) you don't have to be a specific age to identify with a specific aspect of this triune Goddess. In other words, you don't have to be over 50 to identify with the Crone, you might just be a woman of any age who doesn't focus her life on child-bearing, whose focus rather is, for examples, philosophy or spirituality or psychology. Or you may be 40 years old and much married yet feel yourself to a "Maiden" because your focus is on your own fulfillment or career advancement. Too, one woman may incorporate all these roles into her life at the same time. And when we honor the Mother and seek to be like her, our nurturing and birth-giving may not necessarily be related to biological children but may be nurturing by teaching, or giving birth to works of art or inventions. We celebrate Goddess(es) as the embodiment of the divine. Personifying her as female (no, not "feminine"), recognizes women as full human beings. Sure we like to see a women get pregnant and have babies WHEN THAT'S WHAT SHE WANTS. And we respect women who CHOOSE to stay home and nurture their children rather than work outside the home. But that is only one of many ways a woman may choose to live.

Like political feminism, one of the most important aspects of spiritual feminism is the right of a woman to control what is done to or with her body and to control her life. We feel that this is unlikely to be achieved in any significant and long-lasting way as long as women are in religions that support their subordination and take away their choices.

TAGS:life news quiverfull spiritual feminism women and religion Christian fundamentalism Goddess Spirituality

Samhain, Hallows, Halloween Hijacked

The most sacred holy day in many Pagan traditions has been hijacked by some fundamentalist Christian groups to promote hatred and intimidate children. How did this happen? First, it helps to know the religious significance of the original holiday and how it changed to a secular observance.

Among Pagans and Goddessians, the holiday is known either by its ancient Celtic name, Samhain (usually pronounced sou-wen) or Hallows. It is the third and final harvest holiday, celebrated on or around (depending on the tradition) October 31 in the Northern hemisphere. Sometimes called "The Witches New Year," it’s held at the time of year when the darkness of night is beginning to noticeably lengthen. Its central focus is honoring ancestors, reaching a spiritual understanding of death, and overcoming fear. Other themes are transformation and continuity. The aspect of the Goddess associated with this holiday is the Crone, representing the old, wise woman associated with transformation. Observances include leaving food on your personal altar for your own ancestors; during group rituals, reading aloud the names of those who have passed over within the last year, followed by reading the names of babies born in the last year. Because of the belief that the veil between this world and the spirit world is thinnest on this holiday, various forms of divination and spirit contact are sometimes attempted.

Some groups dance a Spiral Dance as part of the ritual. This is a circle dance, with one person leading (a formation known as an "open circle" or sometimes, in folk dance groups, a curved line), and is usually danced using a "grapevine step": Moving in the line of direction, one foot steps to the side while the other foot alternates between crossing in front of the first foot and in back of the first foot (for example, right foot moves to r, left foot crosses in front of r moving r; r to r, l crosses behind r moving r). As the line coils inward, each person comes face to face with every other person. The spiral becomes increasingly compact and the leader intuits when it is time to turn the spiral outward again. If there are enough people and the leader is skilled enough, a double spiral can be formed when the first, inward coiling spiral continues as the second, outward coiling spiral, is formed. The dance symbolizes the cycling and continuity of life. (See Events Coil 4 for various Samhain/Hallows events.)

In the early centuries CE, Christians adapted this holiday’s symbolism, especially the ancestor-honoring – in their observance of Hallows Eve and All Saints Day. Similarities can also be seen to some Jewish traditions, such as praying for the dead (especially those who have passed during the last year) at Yom Kippur, and placing a cups of wine for Elijah and Miriam on the table at Passover.

The name of the secular holiday, Halloween (earlier spelled Hallowe’en), is an shortening of "Hallows Evening," the eve of All Saints Day. In North America, Halloween is mainly a secular children’s festival (though in recent years, some of those children persist in celebrating into adulthood). Many of us who are now elders have childhood memories of going door-to-door "trick- or-treating" in our costumes and even going into the houses to have neighbors guess who we were. Some time in the 60s and 70s, with unverified reports of people putting razor blades in apples and the perceived rise of crime in general, the tradition of children entering visited homes, especially when they don’t know the people, has died out in much of the U.S., and even the going door-to-door tradition is waning in favor of parties in one location.

To me, some of the secular traditions of Halloween retain remnants of the original holiday. For instance, in the custom of costumed children going house to house asking for "treats," (candy, they hope) the children can be seen as (unconsciously) embodying the ancestors and receiving the food for them. The symbol of the ugly, scary witch can be seen as a distortion of the Crone aspect of the Goddess. The ghosts are–well, embodied ghosts. And the slight scariness which becomes fun, and going door to door at night, are ways (were ways?) to overcome fear.

For a number of years, fundamentalist Christians have objected to such secular practices as having Halloween parties in school on the grounds that it’s a Pagan holiday. That apparently hasn't worked well enough to suit them, so they came up with their own "trick": "Hell House," a ripoff of the "haunted house" and a misogynist, homophobic, anti-Semitic distortion of both sacred and secular traditions. The first of these Halloween wicked tricks on children and teens was put on by a Denver pastor in 1992. The event was such a success that he soon was marketing Hell House kits to groups all over the U.S. In a few years a film documentary was made about this fundie fun that scares and intimidates kids. Hell House productions that grew out of the marketing kit material include bloody sadistic depictions of Hasidic Jews ground into meat in Hell; a girl raped and sent to Hell because she commits suicide; a young woman convinced by a demon to have an abortion sacrificed in a Satanic ritual, and a woman deceived by a demon into thinking she’s a lesbian dying of AIDS she contracted during lesbian sex (never mind that this greatly distorts the true incidence and causes of HIV – lesbians have a lower incidence of HIV than either gay men or straight women, in fact, lesbian transmission of HIV is very rare).

Icked out yet? Then you’ll really like this: Guess what just opened Off Broadway in time for Halloween in the Big Apple? A theatrical production of Hell House that follows the fundie script. You think I’m kidding? Here’s one review.

TAGS:life news Samhain Goddess Hallows Halloween spiral dance Hell House Pagan fundamentalist