Did you know the Pope was down in Australia on some kind of dinner cruise/reef-snorkeling vacation package thing? I didn’t either. But he’s down there, and yesterday he addressed billions of pilgrims in Sydney, warning them against “the tedium of false idols and the pain of false promises.”
Now that’s brave talk from the head of a religion that tells people they’ll live forever if they worship a magic dead Jew.
He said some other stuff, but I didn’t read the rest of the article. I just liked the picture. Goddamn, he looks happy.
Posted by Violet under Godbags on July 17, 2008, 1:29 pm EST
i agree completely that attacks on Muslims are more than simple racial bigotry. the bigotry is partly racial, partly cultural, partly political, and partly religious. invidious, uninformed stereotypes underlie all those dimensions. my problem with your approach is that i thought you were opposing that type of argument when you endorsed “every line” of Apostate’s article “Why Honor Killings Are A Religious Issue”.
Apostate condemned Antonova’s article which, while condemning honor killings, argued that they are not per se Islamic but more cultural (i.e., Islam does not always embrace or embody Arab cultural traditions such as honor killings depending upon the culture of its adherents). to me, Apostate’s post was in large part an explicit rejection of the idea that honor killings are cultural as well as religious. Even in non-Arab cultures, she asserts: “Islam IS Arab culture, to a very great degree. Arab culture IS Islam to a very great degree.” Apostate rejects the view that honor killings are not an inherent part of Islam even though (1) honor killings don’t exist in non-Arab Muslim countries, e.g., Indonesia or West Africa and (2) honor killings cross religious divides but tend to follow cultural ones, i.e., if Muslims in a country practice it, usually so do Hindus, Sikhs and Christians.
perhaps we interpreted Apostate’s and Antonova’s articles differently, but your positions seem inconsistent to me. how can you say that honor killings are not partly cultural and partly political as well as partly religious but then say that Islamophobia is only partly racial? it seems to me that implies that Muslims are not motivated by things like culture and politics as well as religion and gender while we’re more complex. If you are not Islamophobic, why do you “embrace” Apostate’s argument that Islam inherently promotes honor killings even though some Imams insist that it condemns them?
I wrote a 500-word comment in reply and then realized that if I’m going to be writing a 500-word comment, I might as well make it a 500-word post. Especially since the intersection of religion and feminism is one of my favorite topics. So here’s my answer to sassysenora:
First of all, I do think we are interpreting Apostate’s post differently.
I read Apostate’s post as objecting to the facile Western (liberal) notion that Islam is a nice idealistic religion that floats above unpleasant cultural practices, and never the twain shall meet. Her point was that religion and culture are inextricably intertwined. Religion codifies culture, and culture reflects religion. You seem to read her as saying that honor killings and other horrors are religious, not cultural, but what she was saying, in my interpretation, is that this is a false dichotomy.
Islam developed in an extremely patriarchal environment (the medieval Middle East) and is saturated with misogynistic notions. There are a few branches of Islam that attempt to transcend the misogyny and embrace a more gender-balanced view, usually because they’re situated in a different cultural environment (for example, the semi-matriarchal tribes of Indonesia), but it’s an uphill struggle. Judaism had a similar start in life, and it took 3000 years to get to the Reform branch and Jewish feminism — and we still have the Orthodox. Christianity took 2000 years to travel that road, and we still have the fundies and the Catholics. It is even arguable (and I have certainly argued it) that the sexism embedded in the deep-history layers of Judaism and Christianity is sufficient to prevent those religions from ever completely shedding their patriarchal frames, though of course many modern, enlightened adherents disagree.
The situation with Islam is even more dire. It’s a much younger religion, and has not encountered an Enlightenment-like revision. It has not been tamed by secularism, as both Christianity and Judaism have been in the West. And it is rooted in a cultural milieu that is more misogynistic than the historical seats of worldwide Christianity and Judaism — both of which were born in the same sands as Islam, but found their destiny in Europe. (Yes, medieval Europe was marginally less patriarchal than the medieval Middle East; that’s not cultural chauvinism, just historical reality.) So it’s easy to look at Islam and wonder how on earth it can ever get to the place where, say, Reform Judaism is now.
But I hope it’s possible, mostly because my preferred alternative (the disappearance of all patriarchal religions from the face of the Earth) seems unlikely. The modern pace of cultural evolution is so rapid that there’s hope. We live in a global village, and memes are the world ocean. Cultural evolution occurs in decades, not centuries. Theoretically, “reform Islam” is a not-impossible goal.
I really don’t know how to help make that happen, though. I could write at length here about the obstacles — political, ideological — but maybe I’ll leave that for the comment thread.
I’ve been a feminist all my life, and the plight of women under Islam has long been a focus of my involvement. I just want to say here that I underline and endorse and recommend every line of Apostate’s post. To my mind one of the most regrettable failures of Third Wave feminism has been its abdication of genuine intellectual engagement with the nature of women’s oppression, particularly with regard to religion. The bold insights and global awakening of Second Wave feminism have given way to the equivocations of Third Wavers, too many of whom mistake anti-racist posturing for enlightenment. It’s easy that way to overlook the blood on the floor.
The blogosphere is picking up on a story that started coming in over the wires last week: religious vigilantes in Basra have murdered at least 40 women in the past year for various infractions of Islamic law. Typically the victim’s body is mutilated and dumped with a note pinned to it explaining whatever monumental death-worthy crime against the universe the woman had committed (wearing lipstick, not wearing a headscarf, etc.)
The Washington Post first ran this story last week, and here’s what the page looked like:
Okay, see the internal banner ad up there above the article? The one that’s floating context-sensitively over a story about batshit crazy god-botherers who are on a killing spree against women in the name of religion? Here’s what it says, in case the type is too small for you to read:
“On Faith | Join Two Nobel Prize winners, Iran’s former president, the author of “The Purpose Driven Life” and others in a dynamic conversation about faith and its impact on the world.”
Click on that banner ad and you’ll be whisked to a soft, gooey, bluish page with padded walls where the Washington Post is hosting a tasteful symposium on “faith.” Contributors include Rick Warren, he of the purpose driven life, a particularly piquant presence in this instance since Warren is basically the modern American corporocraptastic Ray Kroc billions-and-billions-served version of the serial killers in Basra. Theocracy in a Hawaiian shirt with a side order of fries.
Here’s my contribution to this oh-so-dynamic paid endorsement of horseshit: let’s stop calling it “faith.” Let’s call it something else, something more accurate. How about “rationale for the most evil bloodthirsty shit ever committed in the history of the world”? Or “age-old excuse to persecute women”? Or just “festering brain sickness”?
It would put a different spin on things, wouldn’t it?
President Jesus would deliver faux-earnest sound bites about the importance of Festering Brain Sickness-Based Initiatives. Wanna-Be President Romney would give a speech on “Festering Brain Sickness in America” (money quote: “Festering brain sickness requires freedom, but freedom also requires festering brain sickness”). The Washington Post would lure readers to its blue padded room with a banner urging them to “Join Two Nobel Prize winners and others in a dynamic conversation about festering brain sickness and its impact on the world.” Once there, readers would find a selection of articles on “choosing a festering brain sickness” that’s right for them.
I like it.
Posted by The Ghost of Violet under Godbags, Religion on December 10, 2007, 4:05 pm EST
By now you’ve probably heard about Gillian Gibbons, a British teacher in Sudan who’s facing up to 40 lashes for allowing her class of 7-year-olds to name a teddy bear Mohammed.
I’ve been hoping this idiocy would evaporate quickly and Ms. Gibbons would be released, but today the word is that she’s been formally charged with insulting Islam and inciting religious hatred.
In today’s piece over at the BBC, a spokesman from the Foreign Office is quoted as saying “the first step [is] to ‘understand the rationale behind the charge.’” Right. Because it sure as hell isn’t religious sensibilities.
I’ve been watching this case for a couple of days, and I simply don’t believe that it is really some kind of unthinkable offense in Islamic culture to name a stuffed animal Mohammed. Adel Darwish writes about his childhood in Alexandria, when Sudanese Muslim children routinely named their pets and toys Mohammed, Ali, Fatima, and so forth. At Comment Is Free, one of Gibbons’ colleagues in Khartoum writes that none of the parents at the school raised any objection at all to the children’s naming the bear Mohammed. And a seven-year-old boy in the class tells reporters that it was his idea to name the bear Mohammed (after himself, not the Prophet) and the other kids agreed.
Nevertheless,
.. Sudan’s top clerics have called for the full measure of the law to be used against Mrs Gibbons and labelled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.
“What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam,” the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said a statement.
Yeah, right.
As the Foreign Office would have said if it weren’t the Foreign Office and thus constrained to be all diplomatic and shit, “What the fuck is going on here?”
Sudan is ruled by a murderous theocracy that relies on Islamic fanaticism and xenophobia to prop up its regime — as well as to maintain its genocidal war on its own citizens in Darfur. Ten years ago the New York Times described Sudan’s National Islamic Front as “an ingenious hybrid, a cross between a theocracy and a Mafia syndicate.” More than one person has suggested that this business with Gibbons is essentially a kidnapping, with the British schoolteacher serving as hostage for something the Sudanese government wants from Britain (though what, I don’t know). Or maybe it’s just an opportunity for the clerics to stir up some anti-West paranoia, all the better to distract the populace from the fact that they’re being ruled by a bunch of corrupt homicidal maniacs.
Whatever the case, Gillian Gibbons is a pawn with the bad luck to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Brits need to get her the fuck out of there.
Posted by The Ghost of Violet under Godbags on November 28, 2007, 4:08 pm EST
Monsignor Tommaso Stenico, a capo ufficio, or section head, at the Vatican ministry responsible for the clergy, insisted yesterday he was not gay. He said he had posed as a homosexual to research a plot by satanists.
Every time I read that it makes me laugh.
Posted by The Ghost of Violet under Godbags on October 15, 2007, 12:22 am EST
That said, I do believe, in some cases, the abortion-seeking woman is indeed the perpetrator. She knows very well what she’s doing. She’s not coerced by anyone. Perhaps she’s even going against the wishes of her loved ones. This is the woman who should be treated as a criminal – if not a murderer, then an accessory to murder.
What would be an appropriate prison sentence for such a woman?
Fifteen years-to-life sounds reasonable, no? Of course, one would have to take into account all the circumstances in a particular situation, and it wouldn’t be an easy task. But it could be done.
If Matt ever decides to leave the Church, he could do some fine work at Landover Baptist.
I’ve been reading about Sai Baba, an Indian conjuror who has spent the past 60-some years persuading people that he is God Incarnate. He does this, first of all, by saying he’s God Incarnate, which right there is a startlingly effective technique, as the global history of religion amply demonstrates. But his second trick is to, well, play tricks: he pretends to materialize jewelry out of thin air, which he presents to stunned wealthy onlookers. He also pretends to materialize sacred ash out of thin air, which he presents to stunned non-wealthy onlookers. There’s no big mystery about it all, unless you’re a devotee; these are just standard sleight-of-hand parlor tricks. The ash comes from tiny pellets which Sai Baba conceals at the base of his fingers and then crushes as he swirls his hand around in a “materializing” motion. The jewelry is also hidden in his hand, or in his seat cushion, or in his handkerchief.
I’ll have more to say about Sai Baba later, when the Venusian atmospheric conditions here have abated and I’m not feeling so lazy. He’s quite a character — not just a con man but an enthusiastic sexual predator. There are many brilliant and penetrating observations to be made about the will to believe, the psychology of religious devotion, and the whole business of guru worship, which I will get around to as soon as I’m feeling brilliant and penetrating again.
But today I’m just thinking about how magic tricks work in the first place. It’s all misdirection, the magicians tell us, and I think this little online ESP test I found demonstrates that as well as anything. It’s psychological misdirection, telling people what to look for and thus diverting attention from other goings-on. See if you can figure out the trick.
If you know anything at all about rapture Christians, you probably know that they want all the Jews to return to Israel so the End Times will come, when Jeebus will rapture up the Christians and then slaughter the Jews.
This story is old, but I just now came across it. It’s about a couple of Christian missionaries who decided that the best way to get Russian Jews into the washing machine would be to make up shiny pretty Jew-friendly Bibles in the Russian language:
They need Bibles, but a Bible with a difference – a Bible to touch their hearts! Instead of a cross, we put striking illustrations of the Star of David and Menorah on the cover, and called this Bible, The Holy Scriptures. Inside, we added a special feature — a selection of God’s promises to the Jews, which include the Messianic prophecies.
Since there’s no chance the washing machine could actually turn on, I suppose this is harmless enough. (Not the Christofascist support for right-wing Israeli politics, but the Bible distribution bit.) The nice Jewish people get their Bibles, the crazy Christian people get to feed their fantasies, and I get a nice giggle. Everybody’s happy!
Posted by Violet under Godbags on July 17, 2007, 5:43 pm EST
A Qiang woman. Jeebus wants to turn that smile upside down!
The goose-stepping Christofascists are still at it. In a world where women are struggling for basic human rights, in a world where the few remaining matrilineal societies are fighting a rearguard action to maintain their values, what are the Christian missionaries doing? You guessed it: sending their minions abroad to stamp out every vestige of female empowerment they can find.
Check this glint-eyed page from the Joshua Project about one of the heathen groups they want to “help,” the Qiang in China. The Qiang are an ancient matrilineal, matrifocal ethnic group with a powerful tradition of sexual freedom for women. And so naturally the Christians can’t wait to smash the bitches into the mud:
Ties between Chiang men and women are weak. Romantic love is considered important, and sexual freedom is prevalent. The Chiang men need to move into their God-ordained roles as heads of the families.
Ties based on love and equality are always weak, you see; the only tie that binds is the one in the husband’s whip hand. That romantic love is “considered important” is apparently a bad thing to these freaks, and sexual freedom is described like a disease, or a crime, which of course is exactly what they think it is — for women.
Savor this phrase: God-ordained roles as heads of the families. Yeah, we sure the fuck need more of that in the world.
Coincidentally, I was recently reading about the Khasi, one of the traditionally matrilineal groups in India. The Khasi have been the target of Christian missionaries for 150 years now, with the result being that most Khasi have converted and the status of women in their society is appallingly degraded. (Increasing contact with the Khasi’s über-patriarchal neighbors down in the plains is also a factor.) The family home is still passed down mother to daughter, and some Khasi men still go to live with the wife’s family, but these formal expressions of matriliny are just a shell. Sociologists in India have long recognized that all real power is in the hands of Khasi men. They own all the cash and movable property, they make the decisions, they exert sole political power (Khasi women don’t have the right to vote or even debate village affairs), they have the education and the jobs, and on top of all that they don’t even owe the women financial support. The women are expected to obey their husbands in everything, from minor purchases to family planning. All the women have left is their official ownership of the family home, although even there the men have effectively taken over, since actual control is in the hands of the women’s brothers. Still, the Khasi women cling to their matrilineal form of inheritance. Besides being the link with their ancient sense that women are entitled to something, in purely practical terms it’s the only refuge they have against complete poverty. If a Khasi man leaves his wife (frequently after subjecting her to years of domestic violence), the only thing keeping her from the streets is the fact that the family home belongs to her clan and she and her children have a permanent right to live there.
And now the Khasi men want to get rid of that little inconvenience as well. After all, they’re already in charge of everything else; it’s infuriating that those stupid woman-shaped pieces of meat still have official title to the land. The Khasi dudes want to sweep away that nonsense and take their rightful places as “real men.” Just like the guys in the Bible. De facto power is fine, but there’s nothing to swell a man’s dick quite like the formal, official, god-given patriarchy of ancient holy books written in camel shit.
And so they’ve launched a propaganda campaign to persuade the public and the national government to their side. The interesting thing is the tack they’ve chosen. What they want, they say, is “equality.” Huh? Equality? But they’re already superior! Not according to what the Khasi men are telling any reporter who will listen. In Khasi society, goes the spiel, the men are “oppressed.” Women have “all the power” and the poor men “have to obey” the big bad evil women. It’s an astounding fiction that has absolutely nothing to do with real life, but everything to do with the popular myth that matriliny equals matriarchy. “We’re being horribly oppressed,” the Khasi men whine. All they want, they say with big doe eyes as a chorus of We Shall Overcome swells in the background, is to be “equal.” Occasionally one of the younger men slips up and accidentally tells a journalist what he’s really thinking: that women are morons and Khasi men are fed to the teeth with having to screw around with this matrilineal inheritance bullshit; the Christian God says men have the right and the duty to rule absolutely, and that’s exactly what the Khasi men are going to do. But most of the guys are cagier than that. They stick to the script. “We just want equality,” they say.
This is absolutely appalling to activists and sociologists who actually know the score with the Khasi. Feminists in India say that Khasi women actually have lower status than women in many other parts of the country. But journalists are not sociologists, and so they eagerly and uncritically report the Khasi men’s propaganda. It’s so titillating, doncha know — a society where women are in charge! Ooh, sex-ay!
What intrigues me about the Khasi men’s campaign is that it’s so similar to reactionary politics here in the U.S.: white supremacists who say they want “white rights,” male supremacists who say they want “men’s rights,” Christian supremacists who claim that anything short of a Christian theocracy means they’re being oppressed. It’s enough to make me wonder if western missionaries are involved with the current Khasi campaign to destroy matriliny.
There’s no doubt that there is a huge Christian missionary presence in the hills of northeast India, where the Khasi live. Those Khasi who still cling to the pre-Christian ways are in constant conflict with the missionaries, who flood money into the region and actively discriminate against non-Christians. You want a scholarship to go to college? Fine: convert to Christianity. You want money to build a house? Fine: convert to Christianity. And a big part of the Christian message for the past 150 years has been that Khasi men need to…what is the phrase? Ah, yes: “move into their God-ordained roles as heads of the families.”
So I was curious to see what the Joshua Project would say about the Khasi. The Joshua Project is positively obsessed with India, having somehow determined that annihilating Hinduism is key to their global “harvest of souls” (a phrase which always makes me think of the human-battery pods in The Matrix). And lo and behold if the Joshua people aren’t perfectly in tune with the Khasi men’s propaganda campaign for “equality.” Remember how on the Qiang page they came right out and said that men were supposed to be in charge? But they don’t say that on the Khasi page. That would be giving away the game. Instead, they regurgitate the myth that matrilineal Khasi women are rolling in clover, and then follow that with a request that we pray for “social equality in matters concerning the genders.” Social equality between the genders! As if Christofascist pinheads believed in such a thing! They don’t believe in equality; they believe in male supremacy, or what they like to call — excuse me for a moment while I hack up this furball — “headship.” But the official line in Khasi land is that the men just want “equal rights,” and the Joshua folks are playing right along. Don’t mention the headship thing! We’re supposed to call it equality!
To all 37 good-hearted sincere progressive genuinely loving Christians in the world, I say again what I’ve said to you a hundred times: give it up. Just give it up. For two thousand years your religion has been in the hands of sick greedy men who breathe, eat, and shit pure hate. You’re not getting it back. Really, folks: time to punt. It’s the same with Islam — whatever tiny molecule speck of good is in there, it’s surrounded by a bolus of batshit bloody horror the size of Jupiter. Give it up. If you want a good, loving, progressive religion, start a new one. And stop giving these freaks cover for their evil.
Posted by Violet under Godbags on June 24, 2007, 7:02 pm EST
In Salon this morning there is a bizarre non-eulogy to Jerry Falwell that is an exercise in pure wishful thinking. “Conservative Christianity has been trying to recover from Falwell for the past two decades,” Alan Wolfe writes, presumably in between bong hits. “With the maturation of American evangelicalism has come an interest in social justice, environmentalism and peace. The people who represent evangelical Protestantism’s future want little or nothing to do with injustice, pollution and war.”
That would be lovely if it were true, but it’s not. Conservative evangelical Christians in America are for the most part perfect clones of Falwell; they are the army of hate that he created. They are the people who voted for Bush, the people who watch Fox News, the people who glorify war and laugh at torture. They are the people who want to put women back in the kitchen and gays back in the closet and a giant styrofoam replica of the Ten Commandments on every courthouse lawn. Anti-equality, anti-religious freedom, anti-peace, anti-knowledge; pro-war, pro-torture, pro-intolerance, pro-hatred, pro-stupidity. Like this:
“The Equal Rights Amendment can never do for women what needs to be done for them. Women need to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and be under His Lordship. They need a man who knows Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and they need to be a part of a home where their husband is a godly leader and where there is a Christian family.”
-Jerry Falwell
“I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They’ve blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they’re mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They’re sexist. They hate men - that’s their problem.”
-Jerry Falwell
“It appears that America’s anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men’s movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening.”
-Jerry Falwell
[re: 9/11 attacks] “…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say “you helped this happen.””
-Jerry Falwell
“[homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”
-Jerry Falwell
“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
-Jerry Falwell
“Homosexuality is Satan’s diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America.”
-Jerry Falwell
“I do not believe we can blame genetics for adultery, homosexuality, dishonesty and other character flaws.”
-Jerry Falwell
“If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.”
-Jerry Falwell
“The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.”
-Jerry Falwell
“God is pro-war.”
-Jerry Falwell
“Can you imagine the insolence of these [anti-war] protesters? … They have the audacity to disparage and demean these courageous soldiers who are enduring great physical and emotional trauma because they believed in the effort to bring freedom to Iraq.”
-Jerry Falwell
“The media have a widely-held agenda (that doesn’t include support of President Bush) and they are not about to tarnish the image of anti-war protesters by showing them for what they actually are …With this tyrannical approach to the news, it’s really no wonder so many Americans don’t take the networks seriously anymore. And it’s no wonder that conservative Internet news sites have grown by leaps and bounds.”
-Jerry Falwell
“God is a Republican.”
-Jerry Falwell
“The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.”
-Jerry Falwell
“The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.”
-Jerry Falwell
“There’s been a concerted effort to steal Christmas.”
-Jerry Falwell
“The argument that making contraceptives available to young people would prevent teen pregnancies is ridiculous. That’s like offering a cookbook as a cure to people who are trying to lose weight. “
-Jerry Falwell
“The whole [global warming] thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability.”
-Jerry Falwell
“I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”
-Jerry Falwell
“Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.”
-Jerry Falwell
“Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”
-Jerry Falwell
Posted by Violet under Godbags on May 16, 2007, 8:55 am EST
That’s the question on my mind as I chuckle over the news that Al Sharpton, devotee of the Magic Dead Jew religion, is in trouble for casting aspersions on the beliefs of Mitt Romney, devotee of the Magic Underwear religion.
Remember the Heaven’s Gate people, the ones who all committed suicide because they believed that the Hale-Bopp comet signalled the arrival of the heavenly spacecraft that would whisk them away to their destiny?
See, all the revealed religions pretty much start out like that. Comets, magic underwear, resurrected corpses. The key to graduating from Nutcase Cult to Respected Religion is all in the staying power. Obviously the Heaven’s Gate people fumbled the ball right off the bat with the mass suicide thing, so you’ll want to bear that in mind if you’re thinking of starting your own religion. But if your cult sticks around, maybe loses some of the weirder practices, maybe puts a little effort into blending with the rest of society, then you’ve got a shot.
Your first goal will be to achieve what we might call Scientologist Level: everyone still thinks you’re batshit insane, but they’re nice to you in person and have you over for parties. (It helps if you’re rich.) The next level, which will probably take your group at least a century to achieve, is Mormon Level: knowledge of your cult’s origins is fading among the general populace. People think of you as a slightly strange but acceptable minority religion. You’re on your way!
The ultimate level you want to get to, of course, is Establishment Religion That Is So Old Nobody Remembers It Started as a Batshit-Crazy Cult, which is such an unwieldy name that I’m just going to refer to it as Al Sharpton Level. Note that this level is not merely a matter of being an establishment religion, which is something that can happen within just a couple of centuries if you’re lucky enough to have a conqueror or two on your side. No, Al Sharpton Level is when your religion is so old that everyone regards it as profoundly, incontestably, indisputably normal. It takes a long time for a religion to accrue that level of mossy gravitas. Christianity has a couple of thousand years under its belt.
But the pace of cultural evolution is speeding up, so if you’re starting a new cult, buck up. Your religion could go mainstream sooner than you think. I won’t be surprised* if Mormonism itself reaches Al Sharpton Level within the next century or two (in which case we’ll have to rename Mormon Level, won’t we?). Just think: people will pray to Our Father Who Art On Kolob. There will be Magic Underwear boutiques on every corner. Children in Sunday school will learn to talk through their hats, just like Joseph Smith. Those checkout-line books for baby names and pet names will be joined by “Secret Names For Your Wives When They Die!”
And it will all seem completely normal.
*Yes, I’ll be watching. My religion guarantees me eternal life on the planet Gliese 581C.
God knows what they’ve done to Fayne Turney or threatened her with in order to force this “confession,” but it’s interesting that they put a bag on her head for the occasion. Interesting because it’s popular nowadays to claim that the headscarf is just an expression of one’s faith in Allah and Muslim identity.
Is Faye Turney a Muslim now?
The headscarf is a cultural quirk that far predates the Koran; it comes straight out of the viciously patriarchal society of the Arab peninsula. It symbolizes female subservience and always has. If the headscarf were just an expression of one’s faith, it wouldn’t be obligatory. If it were just an expression of faith, it wouldn’t be forced on non-believers. If it were just an expression of faith, non-Muslim British women would be allowed to appear on television in an Islamic country without wearing the stupid thing. If it were just an expression of faith, women not wearing the headscarf would be able to walk down the street in an Islamic country without risk of being assaulted or having acid thrown on them or being dragged off and raped.
Which is not to say, of course, that it can’t be an expression of faith, or that women who actually want to wear the idiot rag shouldn’t be allowed to. But it is absurd to pretend, as so many want to do nowadays, that the veil is just some value-free ahistorical badge of Muslim identity with absolutely no connection to the extreme oppression of women in traditional Islamic society.
P.S. Note to neophytes: If you’re unfamiliar with my blog, rest assured that I loathe all patriarchal godbaggery with equal fervor. Islamic fundamentalists, Christofascist fucktwits, industrial-strength Chareidi men who beat up women on buses* — I hate ‘em all. This Sky Fairy shit has got to go.
*Hat tip to Foilwoman (and apologies for never getting around to blogging it properly).
