Browsed by
Tag: birth control

Napoli: Sodomy of religious virgins might justify abortion

Napoli: Sodomy of religious virgins might justify abortion

Comments 2 comments

I don’t think I had ever seen South Dakota’s State Senator Bill Napoli speak before tonight. He was commenting on the abortion ban there that would close down – gulp – the only operating clinic that’s left in the entire state (this one clinic has to fly in medical volunteers from out-of-state). Guess there wasn’t really much left to do.

Online NewsHour: South Dakota Bans Most Types Of Abortion — March 3, 2006

BILL NAPOLI: When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: You really do?

BILL NAPOLI: Yes, I do. I don’t think we’re so far beyond that, that we can’t go back to that.

Sounds almost sweet, huh? Like the "wild west" reference, which frames the whole thing. In the actual "wild west," women didn’t do very well… Of course, the west wasn’t "wild" when this guy was growing up.

Under what circumstances would Mr. Napoli concede that a woman (or her community) might be allowed to consider abortion? Rape or incest? um… well…. actually….even those cases would have to come under "danger to life of the mother."

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

The case he allowed that might actually "endanger the woman’s life" would be if she were a religious virgin saving herself for marriage" and she was not only brutally raped but also sodomized (because she was sodomized? Does he need some basic sex ed on how pregnancy occurs?). Note that just being a virgin isn’t enough, and that he assumes virginity isn’t actually a choice made in full knowledge and self-value, but only in "religious" conviction (or more likely, quasi-religious pressure).

Note also that the ideal situation is where the community makes the decision for the people involved – both that the woman will carry to term and that the two will marry. What a great basis for commitment – an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. Maybe we should hear some autobiographies from people who had marriages with that auspicious beginning. I can’t think of many men who would welcome a return of the shotgun wedding either. Oh, and should uncle or brother daddy marry the one they "savage"?

His delivery was shocking. It was almost as if the thought of the brutalization of the woman – oh wait, he said "girl" – was a turn-on for him. The last sentence was a bit of an afterthought. Here is a man who clearly views women as property to be controlled and dominated (and even protected – as property). How is he that much different than the rapist he cites?

In any case, "danger to the life of the mother" is usually interpreted in quite narrow terms – that carrying to term might well result in the literal death of the mother – such as with an ectopic pregnancy or other medical conditions.

 

Is it virgin sodomy that makes all the difference for him? Is a woman who isn’t a virgin less traumatized by rape or incest? Is it all about the qualities of the rapist – the brutalizing, sodomizing defiler of religious virgins? Is it enough to be an anal virgin? (Actually, anal and oral intercourse are on the rise among the "no-sex" pledgers. Hope they don’t catch a disease while they’re trying not to get pregnant without birth control.)

Watch for other moves back to the "good old days" too. For people who are so against abortion, they are oddly and ferociously opposed to the proven factors of reducing the number of abortions: birth control, sex education, women’s education and training, equality, and freedom of opportunity. What next? Barring women from the vote or from owning property? Will American women be disallowed from wearing miniskirts, working outside the home, going to college, driving a car?

Fundamentalist sexism and domination of women looks very similar to me across religions. It’s about the same thing as rape – it’s about power, it’s about controlling and dominating women into a semi-subhuman status. Watch what happens to those women in those communities when they don’t have the abortion. See how friendly their neighbors are to a single woman with a child, or to a struggling family with five. Shall we bring back the good old witchcraft charges too?

In a way, I understand. Some people don’t want to have to face reality. There is so much change, and they don’t know where or how they will fit. It’s clear that many of us will be sacrificed to the Mammon, the "god of money." There is meth addiction, there is crime, there is disrespect to "elders" – surely it feels like apocalypse approacheth. It’s strange that they refuse to look at economic factors – but it’s clear that our children and grandchildren will live in a very different world. My generation is the first that has not (on the whole) done as well as our parents did. So some of us can’t actually face the world we live in – we’ve had it relatively easy and some have an irrational assumption that the world owes us something whether or not we’ve earned it or deserve it (shall we call it the W syndrome?). We pretend that there is no poverty while it’s actually increasing, that all parents must by definition be wonderful people, that kin don’t rape or otherwise hurt one another, that everyone who is the least bit different from our comfort group must be evil, that people who do their own thinking and make their own ethical choices are a threat to those who simply submit to authority (hoping they will be spared?). Some people can’t even really understand that there are other countries or people different than the "folks" on our street – most Americans only speak one language. Of course our own "group" has its problems as well, but if we are not directly affected we tend to ignore that as much as possible. We want to protect our kith and kin and we like to hide in the safe comfort of our folk mythologies.

But these are childish reactions, and they bring out very bad things in us. They bring out the very things that every prophet warns against. America is living in a very thin veil of self-induced hallucinations. Part of the "good old days" mythology has to do with dominating women – oh, and killing Indians in the "Wild West." Violence against immigrants, especially Mexicans, is on the rise.

A religious response would have to listen compassionately to narratives of actual, truthful experience (as you would have your God hear you) before proposing solutions or making judgments. These politicians don’t do that very much – and neither do many of their constituents. Listen to the stories of the women who are desperate enough to abort their pregnancies that they travel hundreds of miles to the only clinic in the state to get it done. Listen to the circumstances by which a woman decides to end a pregnancy – it is no easy thing to decide. The stories are often heartbreaking. There are women who have had abortions and regretted it deeply – this is true. There are women who have not, and paid dearly.

This issue is a handy tool to drive people apart because abortion is a very controversial and difficult topic. Ultimately, though, it is not the job of the government to mandate a woman’s reproductive life. Such decisions have to reside with the woman, with her God (if she is a believer) and in consultation with her doctor.

Maybe that’s the beef – that finally there is a matter in which a woman has the final say-so. How threatening to the fragile male ego.

Roe v. Wade was the compromise. If your daughter or your sister or your mother or your friend were in a position where abortion had to be contemplated, you might think differently. Or maybe not – maybe you’re in that group who wants to turn America into a theocracy – complete with stoning?

Added March 4th: Mark Morford’s reaction to all this is much more strident – and witty. Read "S. Dakota Slaps Up Its Women: Another state you should never visit passes an appalling abortion ban, because they hate you"

Independent Judiciary, Roe v Wade

Independent Judiciary, Roe v Wade

Comments 0 Comment

So what does Sandra Day O’Connor say (in case you’ve forgotten, she is a Republican but not a neo-con) now that she has announced her retirement from the Supreme Court?

Speaking in Spokane WA to a group of lawyers and judges in late July, retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she is worried about the future of the federal judiciary because of a “climate of antipathy” in Congress. “I’m pretty old, you know. In all the years of my life, I don’t think I have ever seen relations as strained as they are now” between the judiciary and Congress, O’Connor said. “It makes me sad. … The present climate is such that I worry about the federal judiciary.”

There is sentiment that courts are overreaching,” and in our country today, “we’re seeing efforts to prevent that: a desire not to have an independent judiciary, and that worries me,” she said. “A key concept of the rule of law is the concept of an independent judiciary.”

Not surprisingly, John Roberts is expressing a firm view of an independent judiciary, but I’m not he means what she means by the phrase.

“Judicial activism” is another strangely loaded phrase, used primarily to accuse judges of “legislating from the bench” or being “out of (our) control” when they don’t get into lockstep with the President’s (or the religious right’s) agenda. It is used to generate antipathy toward the check and balance of the judicial branch as against the executive and legislative branches. Somehow, though, it’s never used to describe examples such as Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist, who have explicitly said they want to overturn the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade. Bush has loaded up as much as he can with right-wing judges – but even a couple of his appointments have this distressing tendency to look at the case at hand and to make a real judgment, not just move with the ideological wave.

Roberts writes on the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire:

“It is difficult to comment on either ‘judicial activism’ or ‘judicial restraint’ in the abstract, without reference to the particular facts and applicable law of a specific case. Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system. A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.”

Roberts said that “judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited. They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.”

I agree with what he says in a general way – it’s well-crafted, although I’m a little worried about the emphasis on the limited role of the judiciary. What he leaves out is that the cases often establish new precedents that further impact rulings in other cases, and that judges still interpret – that is, after all, their purpose. That is why the Supreme Court is a body of judges and not just one judge, or a computer, or the President.

Besides not “remembering” his involvement in the Federalists, Roberts spent some time assisting Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during the disputed presidential election count in 2000. He said he went to Florida at the request of GOP lawyers, assisting an attorney who was preparing arguments for the Florida Supreme Court and at one point meeting the governor, President Bush’s younger brother, to discuss the legal issues “in a general way.” Other political affiliations Roberts listed were the executive committee of the D.C. Lawyers for Bush-Quayle in 1988, Lawyers for Bush-Cheney and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Last month, a three-judge federal court ruled the Bush administration’s plan to convene military tribunals to try terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay was constitutional, overruling a lower court’s opinion that the tribunals violated the Geneva Convention. The opinion of the court in that decision was joined by none other than Judge John Roberts, who days later became President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

My only real hope, a long shot I know, is that once he is facing the actual position, a certain gravitas will let him use that great mind of his to good purpose, even occasionally against his entire history of contacts and networks. Who knows? Someone that smart might have hidden depths. What else can we hope for? It’s going to be difficult to challenge him. He’s got the credentials. Some of the papers that would show his lines of thought on different issues are not going to be released – for good reason, one has to think, or else they would be proud to do so.

Roberts wrote that he was interviewed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as early as April 1. Besides Bush, Roberts reported having discussions with Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Andrew Card. To the question whether if any of them asked about his specific legal views or positions on cases, Roberts gave a one-word reply: “No.”

Of course, they really didn’t have to ask, did they – he is well-vetted. I wonder why they keep repeating this refrain as though we would believe that they had absolutely no idea about his opinions and viewpoint. The far right is celebrating for a reason.

The funny thing is, I don’t actually think Roe v Wade will be overturned. If it’s not about money and power, I don’t think it really truly interests this administration all that much. I think they will make some noises in that direction to manipulate the pseudochristians – but they won’t deliver it.

Why? Abortion is a very controversial issue – and along with birth control allowed the liberation of women. Roe v Wade was the compromise that honored both positions. Right now, the majority of American women are somewhat depolicitized. Feminisms have, for a host of reasons, lost ground. Many women are somewhat disenchanted with their options and careers, and feeling as though they might have given up more than they got – after all, the childcare options and equal pay and respect from men never entirely came through. Feminists got painted as feminazis and a lot of women, including many of my friends and on certain days even myself, entered a sort of post-feminist phase.

I don’t think they can go that far all at once. So what they do instead is start working against birth control and sex education… and they’re getting pretty good at that. A lot can be done there against women that is less noticable than overturning Roe v Wade. They even used the case of that poor Lacey woman. Do a little research.

It’s all about controlling women – it’s about power, it’s not about spirituality.

Well – overturn Roe v Wade and you are going to see a lot of angry women. A lot of angry women – we just aren’t willing to go back to the days of my mother, the days when your husband or father had to sign off his permission for a woman to get a loan, the days of backalley wire hanger abortions when only certain wealthy women had control over their reproductive options – those little trips to Europe. Not all women are ready to go back that far, to lose their hard-won rights.

I honestly don’t think they’ll risk the consequences of a fully-politicized female population.

Mobilize Nov 2 – Start planning now

Mobilize Nov 2 – Start planning now

Comments 4 comments

Not in Our Name is trying to launch an initiative for November 2, 2005 called “The World Can’t Wait – Drive out the Bush Regime.” They envision mass outpourings of popular protest on the anniversary of the “re-election.” Politics as usual isn’t going to work, and dependence on semi-magical “leaders” in the Democratic party or elsewhere doesn’t appear to be a good option either. Silence and paralysis are irresponsible – what you will not protest and fight you will be forced to accept. We aren’t make much headway tackling issues one at a time.

Your government is openly torturing people, and justifying it.

Your government puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in the dead of night.

Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.

Your government suppresses the science that doesn’t fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to pay a terrible price.

Your government is moving to deny women here, and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion.

Your government enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and ignorance.

People who steal elections and believe they’re on a “mission from God” will not go without a fight.

—-

We must, and can, aim to create a political situation where the Bush regime’s program is repudiated, where Bush himself is driven from office, and where the whole direction he has been taking society is reversed. We, in our millions, must and can take responsibility to change the course of history.

To that end, on November 2, the first anniversary of Bush’s “re-election”, we will take the first major step in this by organizing a truly massive day of resistance all over this country. People everywhere will walk out of school, they will take off work, they will come to the downtowns and town squares and set out from there, going through the streets and calling on many more to JOIN US.

This is the first of probably several actions that aim to represent the majority as the majority despite losses in freedom of the press – to repudiate this criminal regime, making a powerful statement that this regime does not represent us and we are committed to the refusal of being ruled and manipulated for aims that are not in our national interests.

Imagine if everything just stopped for a day – cars in the streets, people walking, talking with one another. Crowds in public places. They can’t block or arrest everyone. This is a country that is supposed to ensure the right of freedom of assembly – says nothing about permits or “protest areas” in the Constitution. What if major areas all over the country took that one day just to say that they reject what it being done in the name of Americans, and to America and its citizens?

Instead of hostility toward the ones who are still being fooled by Bush Inc – how about a reach out? How about some simple – and accurate – arguments? How about some visual aids? If the protesting is happening all over the place there isn’t a whole lot anyone can do about it! If assembly is peaceable, it’s protected. I say go for it.

This isn’t some nambly-pambly feel-good action. It really means to get out there. Grab ten of your friends and start making things for the camera to see. And…. keep your face off the camera – it’s not impossible that this administration would target you under the Patriot Act as a “terrorist.” And isn’t that part of what’s wrong?

Check out the site: http://www.worldcantwait.org/, and also http://www.notinourname.net/ if you haven’t been there yet. September 3/4 New York City National Organizer’s meeting.

Initiating signers of the World Can’t Wait Call include:

William Blum, author of Rogue State
Prof B. Robert Franza, MD, author of Control of Human Retrovirus Gene Expression
Nina Felshin, author of But Is It Art: The Spirit of Art as Activism
Margot Harry, author of Attention MOVE! This is America
C. Clark Kissinger, Revolution newspaper and initiator of Not In Our Name statement
Rev. Earl Kooperkamp
Travis Morales, Revolutionary Communist Party, SF Bay Area
Jeremy Pikser, screenwriter [Bulworth]
Frances Fox Piven, author of Regulating the Poor
Ralph Poynter, community activist
Michael Steven Smith, National Lawyers Guild-NY
Lynne Stewart, criminal defense attorney
Sunsara Taylor, Revolution newspaper

Fox’s 95 Theses

Fox’s 95 Theses

Comments 0 Comment

I first read the theologian-priest Matthew Fox as a graduate student in philosophical theology and ethics at the University of Iowa. He is perhaps one of the most controversial religious figures of our time. He’s a bit wacky in some ways (see techno-cosmic mass) but I tend to agree with much of what he says. My friend Grateful Bear recently discovered that Fox not only has his own blog, but that it includes a Luther-inspired “95 Theses” on it – in English and German!

In case you don’t know, Martin Luther nailed his own 95 Theses (don’t get it confused with “feces”) to the door of the Wittenberg Church on Oct. 31, 1517. The 95 Theses of Luther attacked papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials – and argued for a return to the Gospel. It was a pivotal moment that led to divisions in the church – from the Protestant Reformations, to the Catholic counter-reformations.

“Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason–I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other–my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen.” – Luther, in Defence of his 95 Theses, April 18, 1521

Fox describes his version as “95 faith observations drawn from my 64 years of living and practicing religion and spirituality. I trust I am not alone in recognizing these truths. For me they represent a return to our origins, a return to the spirit and the teaching of Jesus and his prophetic ancestors.” Here are a few that I particularly like, but it is worthwhile to read and meditate on all of them – if nothing else, it will certainly help you focus your own belief-structure. My own view of authentic Christianity shares many traits with this. No – I am not an agnostic or an atheist. I just don’t believe in most of the standard doctrines and mythologies.

4. God the Punitive Father is not a God worth honoring but a false god and an idol that serves empire-builders. The notion of a punitive, all-male God, is contrary to the full nature of the Godhead who is as much female and motherly as it is masculine and fatherly.

6. Theism (the idea that God is ‘out there’ or above and beyond the universe) is false. All things are in God and God is in all things (panentheism).

7. Everyone is born a mystic and a lover who experiences the unity of things and all are called to keep this mystic or lover of life alive.

8. All are called to be prophets which is to interfere with injustice.

20. A preferential option for the poor, as found in the base community movement, is far closer to the teaching and spirit of Jesus than is a preferential option for the rich and powerful as found in, for example, Opus Dei.

23. Sexuality is a sacred act and a spiritual experience, a theophany (revelation of the Divine), a mystical experience. It is holy and deserves to be honored as such.

27. Ideology is not theology and ideology endangers the faith because it replaces thinking with obedience, and distracts from the responsibility of theology to adapt the wisdom of the past to today’s needs. Instead of theology it demands loyalty oaths to the past.

33. The term “original wound” better describes the separation humans experience on leaving the womb and entering the world, a world that is often unjust and unwelcoming than does the term “original sin.”

36. Dancing, whose root meaning in many indigenous cultures is the same as breath or spirit, is a very ancient and appropriate form in which to pray.

38. A diversity of interpretation of the Jesus event and the Christ experience is altogether expected and welcomed as it was in the earliest days of the church.

40. The Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of working through participatory democracy in church structures and hierarchical modes of being can indeed interfere with the work of the Spirit.

54. The Holy Spirit works through all cultures and all spiritual traditions and blows “where it wills” and is not the exclusive domain of any one tradition and never has been.

70. Jesus said nothing about condoms, birth control or homosexuality.

Matthew Fox 95 Theses – or Articles of Faith for a Christianity for the Third Millennium

(Thank you thank you Grateful Bear!)