Vatican Reprimands Women Religious

The LCWR march to support preservation of the Louisiana wetlands

[This is the first post on this story. A very cool follow-up post can be found here.]

When the stories about Catholic women religious and clergy coming under fire from the Vatican for upholding true Christian values*  made the rounds of the news cycle last week, a lot of people were surprised to learn that any Catholic organizations might actually be working for social justice. But there are orders of women religious (aka nuns or sisters) who have been quietly providing real help for the poor and the marginalized in our society (and around the world) - no religious conversion or test required - and they have been doing so for years. Catholic orders of women religious have been working tirelessly for decades with the most disadvantaged people in society, and often in direct - if quiet - defiance of the official stance of the Church hierarchy

Public antipathy toward the Catholic Church as an institution has grown and is understandable given the heinous crimes and even more heinous denials and cover up that have rocked the church over the past few decades. Catholic politicians like Rick Santorum - whose Catholic fundamentalism is terrifying in its coldly relentless misogyny - has further entrenched the public perception of the Catholic Church as an authoritarian, ultra-conservative, misogynistic organization that seems to be completely forgetting its frequently stated mission to promote social justice.

Sadly, this characterization is undeniably true.  It is a reality that is obvious to objective observers, but which has gone largely unnoticed by parishioners who continue to participate in their traditional communities happily (willfully?) oblivious to the church's recently renewed rightward tilt. One of the things every Catholic knows is that one can visit a Catholic Church almost anywhere in the world and feel at home. The liturgy, the music, the incense - care has always been taken to ensure conformity around the world so that a Catholic community can transcend national borders and national loyalties. It is this conformity and continuity which has lulled many Catholics into a false sense that the Church that they grew up with in the 60's 70's and even the 80's - an emerging progressive and ecumenically-minded Church focused on social justice - has continued to progress. The soothing sameness of Catholic rituals and celebrations served to smooth over and conceal the rightward lurch of the church hierarchy from its rank and file members. People were fooled by the same old-same (wonderful) old appearance of the Church they grew up loving and admiring, while behind that mask, the progressive and socially conscious movement that had at long last been launched by Vatican ll was being dismantled and discarded.

I almost feel like thanking Rick Santorum for bringing the hard-right swerve of the church to the public's attention - and particularly to the attention of sleeping progressive Catholics. While still not quite mainstream Catholicism, this fundamentalist strain of Catholicism has been resurging under the radar for over four decades (the most conservative elements began pushing back even before the Vatican ll council was adjourned), until it has come to dominate the church in a way which is bewildering to many liberal Catholics, and frightening to secular Catholics and non-Catholics. Clearly, though, Catholics are waking up to this reality now and even more clearly, many of them are not happy about it.

On the heels of the contraception debacle, some Catholic clergy are now in hot water for defying the hierarchy and refusing to lobby their parishioners to oppose gay marriage. Polls showed that a whopping 90+% of Catholics use forms of birth control other than the approved "natural family planning" (aka the "rhythm method") and that the vast majority of Catholics support the coverage of contraception by employer insurance, defying the official church position against contraceptive coverage. Perhaps encouraged by the solidly progressive views of a majority of ordinary practicing Catholics, a few priests have begun to refuse to obey their archbishops on other issues where they cannot, in good conscience, agree with the Church.

In Seattle, WA, at least two Catholic priests have refused to gather signatures for a petition for a referendum to ban gay marriage, defying the explicit urging of their Archbishop, Peter Sartain. Among the dissenters were Rev. Michael Ryan of St James Cathedral and Rev. John Whitney, SJ.(Jesuit) of St. Joseph's.

Rev. Michael Ryan

"I have decided that we will not participate in the collecting of signatures in our parish. Doing so would, I believe, prove hurtful and seriously divisive in our community." Rev. Michael Ryan, St. James Cathedral, Seattle.

"The leadership of the church sometimes confronts the world as an enemy of the Spirit. The church needs greater humility and openness." Rev. John Whitney, SJ. St. Joseph Catholic Church, Seattle.

"I am particularly concerned about our youth who may be questioning their own sexual identity and need our support at this time in their lives." Pastoral life coordinator, St. Mary's Church, Seattle.

Rev. Ryan, in particular seems to have risked serious censure by defying the archbishop because he is the pastor at the archbishop's home parish, the archdiocese Cathedral of St. James. But Rev. Whitney, as a Jesuit, has also taken a bold and courageous step:  Jesuits take a specific vow of obedience to the Pope, over and above the usual clerical vows taken by other orders. So far, though, there has not been a reaction from the church like, for example, public censure of the priests.

Interestingly, however, there has been a seemingly out- of-nowhere attack by the Church hierarchy on women in the Church. During the same week that this open act of defiance from priests was occurring in Washington State, news broke that the the Vatican had issued a stunning reprimand of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (story from NPR) for their stance on social issues.  It may be a coincidence that the Vatican has assigned Archbishop Peter Sartain - yes, Archbishop Sartain of Seattle - to investigate and oversee an overhaul of the nun's association. In keeping with the Bible-based and historically deep-seated misogyny of the Catholic Church, it would appear that the Vatican's outrage over acts of defiance from within the clergy could only be adequately assuaged by chastising and humbling female servants of God. Quelle surprise!

What stance suddenly and so deeply enraged the Vatican, you might ask?  Why, that would be the sisters' long-standing (and publicly expressed) view that social justice should never become a political kickball.  It would be their stance that, as women religious, they have a duty and a right to follow their conscience when serving people in need. It would be their stand that when the requirements for social justice conflict with Catholic doctrine, that perhaps it is the doctrine which should be evaluated and not justice that should be sacrificed.  On the website for their social justice lobby, these sisters regularly expressed views which have only now landed them in a great deal of trouble with the men of cloth.

Check out these radical feminists!

The sisters' work and their opinions are not actually news to people who work with them, but as so often has been the case over the centuries, the Vatican largely ignored the women religious. Though these women have taken on the lion's share of the Church's work giving aid and comfort to the poor and suffering, they are rarely acknowledged and even more rarely praised by the male hierarchy for their efforts. Yet, in a time of social upheaval, when issues surrounding women's rights have come to the fore, the Vatican is suddenly focusing on the women they have branded "radical feminists" and punishing them for the sins of moral independence and following their social conscience led by their understanding of the teachings of Christ. They have been given notice that they will be taken in hand by Archbishop Sartain, and their entire cooperative of women religious may be completely overhauled to conform to new, stricter Vatican boundaries including - naturally - a male overseer.

The sisters are not taking this harsh censure with complete submission.  These are women who love God and love the Church, but they also believe in social justice and - though their spokeswoman stops just short of saying the Vatican is dead wrong - they have steadfastly defended their position, in spite of the painful sense of rejection and humiliation:

Sr. Simone Campbell

"And it's not about the giving up but it's about the fidelity to the call to be faithful to the Gospel and have that so unseen and to have this edict never mention the Gospel, never mention the responsibility to be God's arms and hands with people who are poor and suffering, the people at the fringes, people who suffer injustice, to have that not at all seen is extremely painful." Sr. Simone Campbell, executive director of  Network.

Allowing that the edict was like "a sock in the stomach," Sr. Simone nevertheless was generous enough to offer an apologia for the Vatican's unexpected slap down:

"When you don't work every day with people who live on the margins of our society, it's much easier to make easy statements about who's right and who's wrong." Sister Simone Campbell.

Sr. Campbell is more generous - and more submissive to unearned male authority and privilege -  than the Vatican or the Pope deserve.  It should not be surprising that the pervasive misogyny in the Catholic Church which would happily see women everywhere subjugated as inferior, less than human beings, extends even to its servants inside the Church, but somehow it still is. The Church has shown its moral bankruptcy in so many ways throughout its history, but has generally had clever enough leadership to hold on to its position of "moral authority" in society, in spite of behavior which has shown it to be the complete opposite in every way.  The one thin beacon of light in the entire decrepit organization has been the outreach work of people like the women religious, and the Vatican seems determined to snuff it out.

Women helping women.
Retired nuns volunteer to tutor
women for GED

I am a little late getting this post off the writing desk. Started this post last week before, you know - crime - but I still wanted to write about it. There was a time in my life when I was determined to join one of the orders now under the umbrella of the LCWR - when I was fired up with enthusiasm to pursue the kind of "mission" that would be unrecognizable to anyone unfortunate enough to be the target of what opportunistic, proselytizing evangelical churches call "missions" today.  "Sisters" were models of strong womanhood; performing important, meaningful work, giving up comforts and conveniences to minister to the poor and sometimes risking their lives to bring nursing, education and other humanitarian aid to people in war-torn places. In an era when strong female role models (not to mention prospects for a life of adventure) were exceedingly rare for girls, these women exemplified one of the few pathways that a girl could embark upon to make a difference in the world outside of domesticity. 

The people who made the news last week for displeasing their Church masters represent the kind of Catholicism that almost was. The courageous work of Catholic women religious, and the recent willingness of some Catholic clergy in Washington to challenge the Church hierarchy represent the kind of loving and inclusive Christian stance that I once believed permeated the Catholic Church.  While I have rightly abandoned any romantic delusions of that kind over the past several years, it is a relief to know that my youthful belief that there were sincere people who devoted their lives to the social mission of the Church was not entirely without foundation.

*Not to be confused with the brutally hypocritical True Christian Values™ of the religious right.

More in touch with the rest of humanity than most religious people, sisters at Villa Maria by the Sea  host an annual surfing contest.

Is This Art?

The photo above has been making the rounds today and people are talking about it. Apparently there is controversy! Apparently, reasonable fair-minded people must weigh up these obviously equivalent* viewpoints:

It is art!   

vs.   

It is a ghastly racist, misogynistic exploitation of the horrific experiences of women of color in societies which practice FGM for the benefit of a callously opportunistic "artist".

As you can see from all the laughter and smiling faces in the photo, the "art" cake was well-recieved in Sweden, at least amongst the delighted throng of white people who attended the event at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm.

According to this story, the "performance art" was part of an installation purporting to be highlighting the issue of female genital mutilation.  I don't doubt that the museum was trying to highlight the issue of FGM, but I think it would be mistake to assume that the museum's - or the artist's - motivation for highlighting this "issue" was to support the women whose lives are impacted by the practice. An alternative motivation, given the repugnant and culturally tone-deaf centerpiece of the opening party, could be that "highlighting the issue of FGM" has been identified as a hot topic likely to generate a great deal of interest and revenue for the artist and/or the museum.

The "art" consisted of a grotesquely caricatured, naked "African" woman's torso with the "head" being that of the artist who was sitting under the display table with his head poking out through a hole in the table placed above the neck of the cake sculpture.  The artist had painted his face in a ghastly "black face" mask, with a wide-mouthed exaggerated grimace complete with cartoonish wide-spaced teeth.

The "performance" element consisted of the "head" of the "woman" screaming in feigned agony as the Swedish Culture Minister - by previously arranged request - picked up a knife and cut the "genitals" on the cake, mimicking ritual female genital mutilation.  Riotous laughter apparently ensued. The Minister enthusiastically ate her piece of cake and even fed the artist a bit of cake, to the delighted amusement of all parties.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Melissa McEwan had a few suggestions, as did Feministe and these news outlets:  BBC ,  New Statesman, MSNBC.  (Here is the Sarah Baartman story, which some of these articles reference).

Were these people sincerely trying to "highlight" the issue of female genital mutilation in support of the women whose lives are impacted by this horrible practice?  Perhaps they were.  But, if financial and promotional gain were not the real goals behind this mind-bogglingly offensive display, it is hard to think of a worse way to have "failed".

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that instead of a jovial celebration - complete with cannibalistic cake and re-enactments of terrible mutilations - why not simply take a more direct approach?  I don't know, maybe something like this:

* By "obviously equivalent", I mean: not. remotely. equivalent. Obviously.

Equal Pay Day

For all those who work for pay in the USA, today is Tax Day - midnight tonight is the deadline for filing income tax forms.  It also happens to be Equal Pay Day, which is pretty ironic.  Equal Pay Day marks the point in the year when the average woman has finally earned as much as the average man working at the same job had earned by December 31 last year.  Yes, the earnings gap remains that wide.

NPR touched on this subject yesterday in this interview.  It is hard to believe that a political candidate can be so utterly tone deaf, but it looks like Mitt Romney really is that out of touch with the reality of ordinary, middle-class life in the USA today.   From their privileged perch of inherited wealth, Romney and his homemaker wife, Ann, chastise women and the poor for not working harder.  The breathtaking lack of empathy or even basic human decency really does stun me some days.

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin,  a state senator is giving Republican governor Scott Walker a run for his money in the race to win this weeks' Most Misogynist Medal. Sen. Glenn Grothman asserts that earning money is just more important to men.

"Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman, who supports Gov. Scott Walker's repeal of a law that protected workers from pay discrimination, recently said, "You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious."

Got that, ladies?

I wish this were an aberration, but this is just the latest attack in the War on Women from the Republican party. The push to strip away reproductive rights, to deny equal pay for work of equal value and to withhold support for continued authorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it might provide legal protections for LBGT victims of violence are all signs that the Republican party believes that it has drummed up enough support in the general voting population to come out openly with its nakedly bigoted and misogynist agenda.  What is really frightening is that they could be right.

Sandra Fluke wrote an excellent op ed for CNN about the importance of equal pay for work of equal value.  Try not to read the comments which follow the third year law student's well-written article. As if it wasn't bad enough that this is already tax day, equal pay day and a Tuesday*, it looks like the very worst of the bottom-feeding continent of CNN trolls made a special effort to be as despicable as possible there.  Do yourself a favor and click away as soon as you finish the article.

*Tuesday Tonics are here for a reason!

UPDATE:  The Zingularity has the latest polls gathered in one place, and the news is better than I feared. Perhaps the spin doctors hope to create a self-fulfilling prophesy by reporting that Romney's numbers are improving among women. Let's hope they are wrong!

Equal Pay, Schmequal Pay

I am up to my neck in company and cooking this weekend -  yes, that's it!  That is a great excuse for not posting! - but I had to just slip this one in here.  Daniel Finke at Camels With Hammers on FTB posted about the latest shot across the bow of the ship of equal rights. That leaky old vessel is looking worse for wear lately.

This time, it is the Wisconsin legislature, headed by the deservedly embattled Scott Walker, which has rolled back the calendar on yet another milestone in the history of women's rights.  The Wisconsin house, voting along (Republican) party lines, voted to repeal the 2009 law which tried to address unfair, unequal pay practices in the state.  Huffpost article here.

Looks like, with a possible recall looming over his head, Walker is determined to do as much damage as he possibly can to the state of Wisconsin before June.  Naturally, he also seems keen to polish his credentials with the GOP - perhaps he is planning on a federal run if the people of Wisconsin throw him out of the Governor's office - by firing off as many destructive missiles at women as he possibly can, too.

The Republican War on Women:  coming soon to a state near you.

More "Pro-Life" Terrorism

Another Planned Parenthood clinic - this time in Wisconsin - was bombed last night in the continued campaign to deny reproductive rights to women through domestic terrorism.  And once again, the incident will probably* be blamed on a lone, crazy person as though actions like this occur in a vacuum and people who commit these acts are never influenced or affected by violent rhetoric or extreme ideology.


Perhaps it is a coincidence that the bombing came just two days before the Wisconsin primary.  Of course, it must be yet another "meaningless" coincidence that Rick Santorum's recent ad campaign in Wisconsin mentions $50 abortions. No doubt, there are no subliminal dog whistles in the infamous horror ad that Santorum's campaign has been airing. The smirking, pouty scarlet female mouth shushing the viewer is probably just a little creative license, not at all intended to stir up resentful, misogynistic feelings in target viewers.


Sure, anyone who sees a pattern in the domestic terrorism that is being employed by the anti-choice brigade must be a little paranoid, a little crazy. Left-wing conspiracy nuts, we must be!

Story on CBS

Planned Parenthood responds.

*Update: As expected:

State Rep. Michelle Litjens (R), who represents Grand Chute in the state legislature, is a member of Wisconsin Right To Life and a strong critic of Planned Parenthood. She cautioned against associating the bombing with her fellow anti-abortion advocates and complained that the bomber, whatever his or her motivation, may tar the opposition to Planned Parenthood with the crime.
“I don’t believe this is politically motivated, I think this is some crazy person doing something really stupid,” she said. “Bombing a Planned Parenthood is doing nothing about the abortion issue other than calling it to the center of attention and making people who oppose abortion look like they’re out to do something bad.”  (link)

Turnabout Is Fairplay In Defense Against Terrorism

The landlord of a women's reproductive health clinic in Maryland had endured years of harassment by forced-birth protesters. Todd Stave is a firm believer in the Constitutional right to freedom of speech, so over the years he has tolerated what to most people would be a level of harassment and personal abuse that would be intolerable.

Stave has a long history of standing up for women's reproductive rights in his own quiet way. He was only five years old when Roe v Wade was decided, but his family has upheld the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies from the beginning.  Stave's father and sister were the landlords of the clinic before he was, and he carries on the proud family tradition of supporting the right of women to be treated as fully human - with all the rights that men enjoy over their bodily autonomy.

In late 2010, the forced-birth protesters crossed what even the patient and patriotic Stave considered to be a bridge too far.  They began to appear at his children's' school events, published the names, addresses and contact information of friends and family members, encouraging protesters to harass them, too, and made it clear that if he wasn't frightened by their stalking tactics for himself, then they would up the pressure and threaten his children and his extended family.

Stave asked a few friends to help him keep track of the phone numbers of the telephone stalkers and they began to phone the stalkers back.  In spite of the terrorist tactics that he had been subjected to,  Stave refused to stoop to the level of the forced-birthers.  Instead of uttering threats and calling the stalkers names,  Stave and his friends calmly acknowledged the harassing phone calls and thanked the phone stalkers for their "prayers".

At first, there was just a small circle of friends, but the group grew quickly as people heard about Stave's idea of flipping the forced-birthers tactics back on them - only without the terrorism, the threats and the vitriol.  Eventually, more information was gleaned about the phone and street stalkers, and so the friends of Stave began to drop names and places into their phone calls with pleasant wishes for a good day. This was a direct turnaround of the forced-birth stalkers tactic of threatening the family and friends of pro-choice front liners. Except without the threatening.

Stories like this restore one's faith in humanity, if only a little bit at a time. Well done, Voice of Choice. Bravo, Todd Stave!

Washington Post story.

Blogger Jezebel's post.

Protesters respond with more terrorism:  Washington Jewish Week

Another interesting perspective: It's a Beautiful Wreck's post, Daughter of an Abortion Protester.

Paralysis

I can hardly write at all lately on any of the topics that really must be written about, talked about and fought over.  The veritable tsunami of misogynist legislation which has been plowing its way through state legislatures all across the United States has left me feeling paralyzed, speechless and powerless.
There was a time not so long ago when it would have been unthinkable for anyone, let alone an elected official in a state legislature, to directly compare women to farm livestock and to say without fear of censure that women - adult female human beings - do not deserve as much, and certainly not more, consideration or health care protection than cows and pigs.

I'd like to think that the Georgia horror must surely be the lowest point possible in this nightmare,  but in this new world order,  I am no longer confident that there is any level of vindictive cruelty too low to which those who wish to strip women of their humanity will sink.

Too bad she's not a fetus

The reality is that women are quite literally under an all-out attack right now. This is not the work of just a few "fringe" people with a religious agenda.  This is the final stage in a long, deliberate strategy by the religious right and its political wing, the Republican party, to roll back the rights gained so painfully by women in the last century. The strategy was to evangelize and mobilize a voting force to bring these Christian extremists to power,  and it has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Not only did they create a "base" of determined and loyal religious fanatics, but they gained the unstinting support of self-described "moderates" who were - and remain - only too happy to clasp hands with the fanatical fringe as long as their own privileged position in society appears to be protected.

In his book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Chris Hedges gives a chilling and detailed account of just how that strategy was implemented. Read it. The author was able to interview many of the principals. Their strategy has been so successful that by the time Hedges wrote the book, their success was so great that they did not attempt to hide the agenda any longer.  In fact, they took great pleasure and pride in telling the story of how they have managed to bring the country to its knees and have forced the United States into a Christian theocracy in every important sense.

One of the most potent weapons they used to win voters' support was women's reproductive rights. Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas? describes in chilling detail how the religious right and the Republican party reframed the issue of abortion to their mutual benefit, and started (in earnest) the war on women which we are seeing approaching a starkly hateful climax this year.  The lie of calling most abortions the "killing" of "unborn babies" instead of the removal of blastocysts, embryos or zygotes (which is what abortion is in nearly 90% of cases) was the beginning of a campaign of fear, violent imagery and emotional manipulation of potential voters which has reaped a devastating toll on women's rights everywhere.

Back in 1998, Hillary Rodham Clinton was roundly ridiculed for saying that there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy".  She was correct then and she continues to be correct today.  In her opinion piece for the New York Times today, Maureen Dowd talks about the former presidential candidate's renewed vigor in the fight for protection of the rights and dignity of women.  It gives me some comfort to read an article like this.  Allison Yarrow  also has an excellent piece today on the rash of bills tabled by women representatives (and one man - Ted Celeste of Ohio - if only I still lived in Ohio, he would have my vote!) to highlight the absurdity and dangers of these anti-woman pieces of legislation.

I am going to work on further posts on this. For today, though, this is about all I have in me.

Gee, Rush, What Words Did You Mean to Use?

Rush Limbaugh is a contemptible pig.  Not only has he not actually apologized to law student Sandra Fluke for his outrageous and scurrilous ad hominem attack,  but in the course of his non-apology,  he has managed to further debase himself by descending into a disjointed tirade in which he blamed "the left" for making him hurl vicious abuse at the graduate student.

To read Limbaugh's mewling apologia is to peek under the veneer of humanity and behold the rabid humanoid underneath.  The notorious shock jock whimpered that the things he said to Ms. Fluke - insults flung not impulsively but repeatedly, over several days, and with increasing vulgarity - were somehow dragged out of him "against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong," by the left!  This breathtaking leap of wingnuttery is simply dumbfounding.

Rush's mouth opens.  Filthy lies spew out.  You can't explain that.

Sometimes, one can only stare at stuff like this in shocked disbelief,  but I would like to take a moment to say - Oh no you don't, you vile bottom-feeder!  How dare this unprincipled slimeball suggest that his disgusting actions were the fault of anyone but himself?  How predictably cynical and typically political of him to try to shift the spotlight which revealed his repugnant immorality off onto the (invisible, mysteriously oligarchical - yet oddly impotent!) left.  The unmitigated gall of the scoundrel!

Limbaugh howled incoherently for half an hour attempting to placate the sponsors who continue to pay for the vitriolic effusions that passes for programming in some media circles.  In the course of his raving,  he whined about his victimization by the left and somewhere in there, he also mentioned that his mistake was in using "those two words" to "describe" Ms. Fluke.

I suppose the burning question now is:  in the context of his rant against the rights of women in general - and Ms. Fluke in particular - to have affordable access to contraception,  what other words did Rush Limbaugh actually intend to use?  If the problem was simply two poor word choices,  what substitutes come to mind now that cooler heads prevail?  Gee, I wonder.  But, I won't hold my breath for an answer to that one.

Sandra Fluke,  I Salute You

Conservative CNN blogger David Frum wrote a grudgingly honest piece rightly denouncing the attack, but WTF? CNN?  Who decided to slap the title, "Are we being fair to Rush Limbaugh?" on the piece? Since when does even-handed journalism mean presenting as the victim a person who is universally recognized as having been guilty of egregious indecency toward the true "victim" in this debacle?

Seriously, WTF?

Mother Nature, Not God, "Chose" To Slam the Midwest

Henryville, IN  March 3, 2012

The latest natural disaster has brought to the fore something that I've always noticed but have rarely written about.  It is always difficult to talk about the insidious poison of god-belief and the harm it does to humanity, but it is doubly hard when there has been a disaster.  People don't want to hear about it and they often react very negatively to any attempt to talk about it. They feel that the atheist who decries the talk of gods during a crisis is capitalizing on the emergency to "proselytize" for atheism.

Yet, capitalizing on the crisis to proselytize god-belief is exactly what is already happening, and what happens every single time there is a natural disaster or human crisis of any sort. Theists use disasters to underline the privileged position of theism in society by inserting prayers and petitions to "God" into public activities around the crisis but, even more perniciously, they use disasters to further entrench irrational belief in the minds of a traumatized and psychologically vulnerable populace.

"It's a blessing. We praise God (that no one was hurt)"

"Thank God (few students were at school when the tornado hit), or they all would have been gone."

What is more, this pushing of god-belief is nearly always coupled with phrasing which disrespects real heroism and human effort, thus displacing the gratitude which rightly belongs to human beings who have actually taken action - who have actually provided real help - and allowing it to dissipate pointlessly into the "thank god" ether.  Worst of all, theists rarely miss the opportunity to reinforce religious misogyny and bigotry in the vulnerable psyches of people who are grappling with a terrible situation.

I found remarks by Mitch Daniels - Governor of Indiana and fervently conservative Christian - both offensive and revealing,  especially juxtaposed so closely with those of theists thanking "God" for the good luck of not being the ones killed in the disaster.   Referring to the devastating storms of March 2, 2012,  the governor repeatedly blamed them on "Mother Nature" throughout the day.  Here and here are some news articles where the governor is quoted doing this on several different occasions.  The remark most packed with WTF?,  in my view,  was this:

Ferocious Mother Nature

 
"I am constantly amazed by both the unpredictability and the ferocity that Mother Nature can unleash, when she chooses to,"  Governor Mitch Daniels, Indiana. 

Those damned females!  Even female gods can't be trusted not to make "choices" which cause death and destruction!  And don't get him started on how unpredictable and ferocious that female anger can be. 

There is so much to talk about here that I hardly know where to begin.  This quote is a tiny illustration of a topic that is so huge that there is no way it can be covered in one post.  I expect that quotes like this, which crop up with depressing frequency in our god-soaked culture,  will be an ongoing source of grim inspiration for countless posts on religious misogyny,  privileging of theism,  irrational thinking, displacement of natural human feelings and ideas, anti-choice ideology, bigotry, homophobia, racism... well, you get the idea.

For starters, let me try to zero in on the problems with the quote above, as briefly as possible.

(One of?) The Loving Creator (s)

Christians claim to believe in only one god.  Well, actually three gods.  But they claim that those three do not count as three gods, by virtue of a clever fourth century patch called the doctrine of the Trinity established at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.  Somewhere along the line, religionists decided that monotheism was a superior form of religion to polytheism.  All those saints and extra special Biblical figures (Ba'al, Moses, Mary, etc) who perform magical god-like miracles, though suspiciously like demi-gods in a polytheistic pantheon, are not formally recognized as gods by believers. 

So, the general claim of Christianity is that it is a monotheistic religion.  Except of course, there is Satan who is alleged to have nearly as much god-like power to do evil as God himself has to do "good". There is a lot of overlap there, too, because Satan is often credited with doing things that seem good to trick believers, while God is often cited as the power behind many terrible events (but always for loving reasons, of course).  It is pretty confusing in the theist world.

Mother Nature the un-goddess

But if there are no other gods but the Triune God why, then, do theists like Governor Daniels say foolish things like "once again Mother Nature has dealt harshly with Indiana" ?  Apparently,  when random natural phenomena occur -  as long as the theist majority decides not to ascribe the events to judgement by an angry god - there is unspoken agreement that those events can comfortably be attributed to other supernatural forces.  Forces that are not gods, you understand, but other anthropomorphous, supernatural beings.

With god-like powers.

Hmm.

There is clearly a problem of unacknowledged polytheism here,  not to mention the privileging of the majority religion's god over less favored gods.  "God" is praised and credited with saving lives in the midst of destruction, while "Mother Nature" is roundly blamed for causing the destruction.

The other problems are more difficult to untangle from the mess of misogyny,  anti-choice ideology and polytheism that is all bundled up in these remarks by the Indiana governor.  Some people will say that it is too much of a stretch to hear misogyny and anti-choice ideology in a remark about a devastating natural disaster, but I don't think it is.  I think that reinforcing negative feelings and othering actually is the point of making remarks like that at a time like this. 

I do not think it is mere coincidence that the supernatural force to which disasters like this are most commonly attributed is female.  I do not think it is an accident that Mother Nature is characterized as both "unpredictable" and "ferocious".  I do not think it was merely an odd choice of words to say that Mother Nature can unleash death and destruction "when she chooses to".

I think that quote contains more misogynist baggage than I have seen packed into so few words in a very long time.  Much of it is probably unconscious.  The fear of female anger,  the casual attribution of unpredictable rages to a female source and the words which are so commonly used to derogatorily describe women are often so deeply and unconsciously infused in our society's language and cultural narratives that to point them out is often dismissed as oversensitivity.

But the suggestion that Friday's disaster was not a random occurrence in nature but the choice of a ferocious and unpredictable female supernatural power is a signal that the unconscious beliefs behind a remark like this are something deeper and more dangerous.

This is something that needs to be discussed. 

I want to send my sympathy and best wishes out to the people in Indiana, Kentucky,  Ohio,  Tennessee and Alabama who are dealing with the aftermath of yesterday's tornado outbreak in the USA.  Yesterday was a terrible day for anyone unlucky enough to have been in the path of the destructive storm system which swept across the continent.   Like so many other Americans,  I kept an eye on the news and worried about family and friends in the path of the storms.  I understand that rescue operations began immediately and clean up crews are already on the ground in the hardest hit areas.  I am thankful for all of the people in those communities - rescue workers,  emergency medical personnel and many other professionals and volunteers - who have rushed to help their fellow humans during this emergency. The Red Cross has launched a huge tornado disaster relief effort.  Here is a link to their site where people can make donations toward providing real help for people affected by the disaster.

Republican War on Women

The news this week from Washington is as chilling as ever.  Forced last week to back away from (though not give up) their incredible and cruel attempt to redefine rape in such a way that women and girls (and even men and young boys) could be victimized, raped and abused in countless ways without legal protections or human rights,  the Republicans in Congress decided to attack the safety, health and autonomy of millions of women this week by voting to deny federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

Please read this short list of the recent attacks by religious conservatives,  through their political arm the Republican party, on the dignity, humanity, rights and freedoms of women and girls in the USA

The monstrous hypocrisy of the Republicans (not to mention the religious right) is truly frightening.

What I cannot understand is why the attack on women which is spreading over this country isn't getting front page attention on all of the news sources! In just the last month alone, Republicans (bowing to pressure from the religious right which seems to own their souls) have made attempts to redefine rape (!!), take away reproductive rights and to greatly reduce access to what reproductive options women still can legally choose - if they can find them at all.   Reproductive choice for women has become more and more difficult in the last two decades as Republican-led efforts to undermine reproductive rights has succeeded in making not just abortion, but also female-controlled contraception less and less available to millions of women.

I cannot believe the hatred and contempt in which the religious right - and now the Republican party -apparently hold women. The language is always fetus-focused while implacably unmoved by the plight  of the women whose lives are impacted by unplanned pregnancy, let alone respectful of their civil rights. Every argument for rights for the women is met with vague deflections (except by the most blatantly misogynistic) but the bottom line is this: the religious right seems to be driving toward a point where no woman can be allowed to have full human rights in this country.

It appears more and more likely that if conservatives get what they want,  then it is actually possible that in the near future no woman in the USA will be free to have sexual relationships of her own choosing, nor be able to time pregnancies as she wishes. 

The goal seems to be to strip women of their sexual freedom totally, leaving them at the mercy of the whims of the men they encounter.  Some of those men will be honorable and decent human beings who will not abuse women (though every sexual encounter will mean a possible pregnancy unless he doesn't want one and takes male-controlled steps to avoid it), but too many others will do what some men have done since the beginning of time: opportunistically prey on women who have been stripped of power, coerce or force sex on them and inevitably (in a world where reproductive rights and freedoms of women have been restricted to the point of a privilege for the wealthy) cause an unwanted pregnancy - the consequences of which the women will then face alone.

I cannot understand why women are not protesting in the streets.  Why are there not thousands protesting in front of the Capitol?  And yet,  I do sort of see what happened.

First, this has not been widely covered in the media so many women do not realise that their very status as fully human beings in this society is in peril - and that is a shameful dereliction of journalistic duty.

Second, I think too many women assume that since Roe vs Wade has survived numerous attacks in the courts and legislatures (even though nearly every attack has weakened it and chipped away at it) that the 1973 law can "never" be overturned and women's reproductive freedom will always be protected, even as we lose more power over our own bodies and destinies through creeping state and federal laws every year.

Third, the religious right has been allowed to control the message, the language and the power around reproductive rights for so long that women are intimidated (I won't say terrorized, but it may come to that) and afraid to speak up or protest because they feel so outnumbered and certainly far weaker than the huge, wealthy anti-choice machine.

Women - and men who respect and love women - need to stand up and speak out!   We need to launch a protest in Washington and not be silent any longer!  We have given too much control over this debate to the religious right and it is time that moral, upstanding, loving men and women stand up and speak out for protection of our civil rights!