As an old Army buddy of mine, Paul McGraw, a man of uncommon intelligence and a survivor of one of the most harrowing childhoods I've ever heard of, says of Pat Robertson: He could make an excuse for the Inquisition.
And for all you veterans out there who apologize for Pat Robertson's many, many faux pas', you should read about his
"war experiences" in Korea. You see, he decided to run for President in 1988, of the USA, not 700 Club or Kiwanis Bake Club, POTUS! As with many people who decide to run, they forget that whatever sway they held over the media before they ran (see Palin, Sarah) is IMMEDIATELY extinguished the second they declare their candidacy.
Pat, being the humble. multi-millionaire, & man of God he is, started flapping his "not-quite-attached-to-the-skullcap-lips" about his "combat" service in Korea! Problem was, of course, that the people who were in Korea actually fighting the enemy didn't remember seeing Marion do the things he claimed to have done...Over the years, he's also been caught lying about being accepted into Phi Beta Kappa, is an advocate of Christian dominionism (Christians have
a Right to Rule this country), blamed the death and destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina on America's abortion laws, has used non-profit resources "dedicated to missionary work and relief supplies" to pursue so-called "blood diamonds" in Africa, and has, among other things, accused the US government (under Bill Clinton, of course) of going after "good Christians" like Charles Taylor of Liberia who has been indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and has
provided shelter for known al-Qaeda operatives.
Closer to home, just the other day on Facebook, one of my wife's old high school friends who is an unapologetic evangelical Christian came out and flatly stated that his comments about Haiti were wrong and "embarrassing" to her as a Christian. My wife was heartened to see her friend step up and draw the line, so to speak. Unfortunately, another person became embroiled in the discussion whether Robertson's statements were based in fact and defensible, which she obviously did. She indicated that she had visited "his site" and found his testimony of Haiti making a pact with the devil in 1791, thusly offering credible proof that the Haitian people were being punished for their pact with the devil. In the mysterious half-words of a devil-worshipping texters: "
compelling???? OMFG!!!!"
And some people--despite his
loooong history of blaming the victim, requesting "on air" that someone assassinate the president of Venezuela because that person, a blowhard-of-the-people type, called George W. Bush "the devil," advising women to become subservient to their husband's as men are subservient to the Lord because the Bible states unequivocally that the "Lord is Our Father;" therefore, the omniscient, omnipotent, and timeless entity that is The Creator of all that we see and knows all that can be known, must have "a package" or genitals that reside mostly on the outside of "His" "body", or in other words, God is a Dude--STILL defend and apologize for him.
Now, call me crazy (and more than a few have, especially those who lean toward narcissistic personality disorders or obsessive hyper-religiosity), but I refuse,
REFUSE to believe that the Bible is bereft of the cultural language and sensitivities of the peoples who recorded the "inspired word of God" (vice the multiple "gods" that existed prior) beginning about
18th or 19th century BCE. Think about this if you dare:
Women, in this country, a country founded on such high-falutin' ideals as equality before the law (if you were a white, land-owning male, that is) and the inalienable right (meaning no one could take it away once it was established that you were a full citizen--as well as human from birth) to live your life as you saw fit and didn't intrude on someone else's rights (unless, at first anyway, you were not a white, land-owning male), etc, et al. Still,
WOMEN COULD NOT VOTE until the beginning of the 3rd decade of the 20th century!!! (Congress passed the 19th Amendment in 1919; but, it was not ratified by the states until 1920. And before some snarky shark starts yapping about the 2nd decade, remember that the 1st decade of the 20th century started Jan 1st, 1900, not 1910. I think.)
So, with that information in mind, there exists approximately 3,800 years (or so, give or take a coupla-three hundred years,) between the initial assembling of what would become the First books of the Judaic tradition in which One God is recognized as
THE Timeless, All-knowing, All-seeing, All-powerful Entity
and this "enlightened" country's legalization of the Right to Vote for all citizens (in good standing, i.e., non-felons.)
Soooooo, do you think it's possible, probable even, that the vestiges of any male-dominated society from 3,800 years ago may (ironically) have "had some legs," by which I mean to say that its societal norms would have been the familiar source from which to "erect" (get it? ;-) ) a symbolic construct that everyone would've been both familiar and willing to accept? In other words, how do we make this "new" religious thought understandable and accessible to its adherents, i.e., its "target audience?"
By all accounts, men were the leaders of all key institutions in the ancient world--schools, religious rites/teaching, courts, business trade and regulation, military, etc.--why would the concept of a God being powerful, forceful, decisive (a.k.a., acting but not always thinking it through, "ya know, followin' yer gut!" like the war in Iraq) be attributed to a woman? The teachings of Christ, himself a Jewish man of very humble origins, were iconoclastic enough to have revolutionized western Europe within 500 years of his death.
Stereotypically speaking, the qualities shown above have always been associated--in a positive sense-- with men; therefore, God HAD TO BE A MAN! Women aren't forceful unless it's a negative connotation ("Bitch!"), they aren't physically powerful unless they're butch lesbians, and they are RARELY decisive unless they're "bitchy," again. And I'm applying the language of TODAY because, oddly enough, the perception of these dynamics are still stereotypically acceptable in many forums of discussion.
SPOILER ALERT: If anyone is familiar with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the use of language in a similar way led to the undoing of the ultimate bad guy (Sarimon, Suaromin, Rico Suave, whatever his dumb name was) because it had been prophesied that "no MAN" could kill Rico Suave! Therefore, when only a strong woman was left to defend her stricken father, she had no choice but to plunge her sword into the icky, gooey blackness that served as Rico's "face." Fortunately for her, Rico had failed to pick up on the exact wording of the prophesy.
Remember what was said? No, I'm serious because I can't remember it word for word. OK, I'll paraphrase but I don't wanna hear a bunch of caterwauling about it later, got it?
Rico, standing about 15' tall, taunted his adversary after breaking the shield and the hand that held the teensy-weensy shield, telling "him" that it was no use fighting Rico...Ssssuuuuaaaavvvee because no MAN could defeat him. This in turn cued our little battle axe-toting beauty to doff the helmet that kept her true identity a secret, saying in her huskiest voice that this was different precisely because she was "NO MAN!" thereby prompting her to stab Rico in the gunk that served as his "face"...did the shit hit the fan after that little gender-bending scene!!! The orcs couldn't run away fast enough after "SHE" killed "HIM"! Of course, it never occurs to anyone that perhaps a female elf could've hidden away, or worn a man's uniform...I hope I haven't spoiled the ending for anyone. If I have, tough toenails.
I'm almost certain to have made a point here about something. It's not that the Hobbit who ruins his life and any good looks he may have had by craving gold and having an oddly Jewish-sounding name (Gollom), whose lust for his "preshious" nearly trips up the entire story at the very end. I just think it was in poor taste to make your anti-Semitic point the way the author did. But, I digress.
The point is for anyone to point at the use of the word denoting a male as "The Lord God" from a text written 3500 to 4000 years ago and continue to use that word assignment like the text to a play, as reason to instruct women that they are to be subservient to the "lord" of the house is preposterous. (We don't use that word nearly enough despite the ample opportunities modernity and the last 10 years have extended to the opportune and quick-thinking.)
The brilliant observer and commentator Chris Rock noted in a comedy routine several years ago: the religious prohibition on the consumption of shellfish should've been repealed when modern refrigeration hit the Holy Lands. Of course, anyone who eats a shellfish that has "turned" runs the risk of introducing powerful toxins into their system that could kill them. However, keeping shellfish on ice delays the development of the toxins that are the natural by-product of the breakdown of tissues in the now ex-shellfish.
So, what do you think the chances are that Abrahamic religious traditions will revisit the idea that God must be "male" in light of the mounting evidence that women are just as capable, intelligent, and compassionate despite, or because of, their abject lack of male reproductive organs? Or is this just a power play by men to ensure their pre-eminent role in the household, their individual accomplishments and deeds, or lack thereof, notwithstanding?
This is my BEST guess
as a man, which means it will ALWAYS be superior to anything my wife (harumph!) could come up with: men, being stereotypical men and all, will NEVER allow women to usurp the man's traditional role as the avatar for "Our Lord God," i.e.,
"Lord of the Dance = Lord of the Manse!" :-(
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." --Pat Robertson
To think that some of our citizens--most of who cherish their rights to vote, own property, and pursue their own happiness--would allow the cultural norms of an extinct civilization from 3,800 years ago define our most fundamental, familial relationships is, to put it mildly, mind-boggling. And sad. Try as I might, I cannot speak to stupidity of such breath-taking depth and breadth.
XOXO,
Ernst Wolfgang, a.k.a. J.R.
ps-I do not hate Christ or Christianity. I believe that many positive, spiritual traditions help people
get through the day, week, death of a loved one, a terminal illness, or provide context for their life are valuable and life-affirming. Christ and Buddha have approaches to several ideas that are striking in their simplicity and similarities that cannot be explained away easily.
I do not trust any religious or spiritual tradition that claims to have special or lone access to the mysteries of the universe and God's role in them. Lastly, any religious tradition that strays from its original path of spirituality and comfort for people who reside in difficult, dangerous, and disaster-laden worlds are doomed to failure and cataclysmic errors. See the history of the Catholic Church from the creation of the Holy Roman Empire to the end of the 30-Year War and the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi madmen and Eugenicists for a better perspective. EW/JR
