by Karen on January 21, 2009
I don’t know about ya’ll, but I for one am tickled pink that our first lady is a black woman.
I’m happy for Barack Obama and I realize that him becoming POTUS is history with a capital “H”, but it’s Michelle Obama that really makes me grin and want to do a silly dance.
It’s kind of strange. I never realized how much of an impact that the endless line of white women being ‘First Lady’ impacted me until Michelle Obama. When it comes to race I’m somewhere between white woman and woman of colour with most people classifying me as middle eastern or plain “not white”, especially if I’m out with my daughter who is very white.
The point of this post? I suppose there is no point. I guess I just wanted to share my joy at the First Lady looking a bit more like me than not this time around.
by Karen on November 29, 2008
I finally got around to reading this month’s issue of Freethought Today by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and as usual, it was not disappointing. Of all the articles this month it is the one by Barbara Walker titled “A Brief History of Marriage” that caught my eye.
Apparently back in the day it was women who owned everything and held so much power that men could only attain social standing if they were married to the highest ranking woman in their respective societies. They lost that social standing if their wife died or left them:
At the beginning of history, men could claim spiritual and secular authority by association with a representative of the Great Goddess. Early kingships depended on the king’s marriage to his nation’s Mother Earth, in the form of a high priestess or queen. Landowners in pre-Christian Scandinavia were kvaens, “queens,” the same as Saxon cwenes. Scriptures from Babylon and Phoenicia speak of the time when fatherhood was unknown, but kings could rule by means of a hieros gamos, a “sacred marriage” with the Goddess.
The high priest of ancient Rome, the Flamen Dialis, had no power unless he was married to the high priestess, the Flaminia. If she died or divorced him, he lost his office. Similarly in Judaism, a rabbi had to be married to be considered spiritually empowered. In India, even today, it is said that every god must have his Shakti, an emanation of the Great Goddess as a divine muse, because godlike potency is gained only through women: “Women are Life itself.”
At the risk of once again having my feminist card threatened with revocation, I have to say it must have sucked to be a man a few thousand years ago. For me, Walkers article detailing, if only briefly, how marriage used to work puts how marriage has worked here in the west for the last thousand years or so as well as the writings of early Christian leaders into perspective.
Imagine for a moment that every current well known man here in the west could only get and hold their positions via marriage to a woman.
Is it little wonder why early Christian leaders despised marriage and worked to see that the rules that subjugated them were not only made null and void, but that new rules were put into effect that, in effect if not intent, subjugated women to them once it became common amongst Christians?
by Karen on December 13, 2007
Someone at the Economist has a problem with atheists. According to the anonymous author of this piece we pick the wrong fights and keep using that “A-Word” which frightens the poor little Christians.
How do we know when we’ve picked the wrong fight? A wrong fight is anything the liberal Christians don’t agree with us on. Of course, the conservative Christians accuse us of the same thing. And why do they accuse of us picking the “wrong” fight? Because they’re completely happy with whatever we’re fighting them on. Same coin, different side, same story. Imagine that, eh?
Our anonymous author also has a problem with us using the term atheist. The author also has a problem with godless, humanist, bright and secular. I suppose we should just call ourselves space monkeys but I’m willing to wager that that would upset the Christians too once they learn that “space monkeys” means “people who do not think there’s an invisible magic man in the sky”.
What really ticks me off is the author’s inherent message that we should shut up about anything that we consider important because there are things taking place that are effecting the lives of Christians. This is obvious when one considers that the author thinks removing references to the Christian god from both the currency and the federal pledge is “wrong”.
Why is it wrong? Because it doesn’t bother the majority of Christians. And since it doesn’t bother them, it’s not important. On the other hand, the prospect of being hit up for Jesus by their own kind does bother them. Since what bothers Christians is important by default, the rest of us need to shut up about all other issues until the Christians are safe again.
But don’t worry, once they’re safe again they’ll go right back to insisting that anyone who supports arming the wall between their religion and our state is smoking something that isn’t legal in all fifty states.
In conclusion, I honestly swear I’m starting to hate liberal Christians more and more each day. At least with conservative Christians, a bullet is not only expected – but promised.
