logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

The Ten Commandments

  1. Have no other gods.

  2. Don't worship images.

  3. Don't mention Gods name in vain.

  4. Remember the sabbath day.

  5. Honour your father and mother.

  6. Don't kill.

  7. Don't commit adultery.

  8. Don't steal.

  9. Don't lie.

10. Don't desire anything or anyone that belongs to someone else.
 
 
 

The First Commandment

Feminism's obsession with substituting gods for God


2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 You shall have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:2-3


Irreverence, intolerance or blasphemy — the last supper according to a feminist 'artist'

Feminist "last supper" --The Apostels have been replaced with feminists in Leonardo Davinci;s Last Supper

"Some Living American Women Artists" . . . Mary Beth Edelson . . . Collage (Source)

 

God is going to change.  We women are going to bring an end to God. As we take positions in government, in medicine, in law, in business, in the arts and, finally, in religion, we will be the end of Him.  We will change the world so much that He won't fit anymore.1

— Naomi Goldenberg in Changing of the Gods: Feminism and 
the End of Traditional Religions, p. 3
quoted at the beginning of From Father God to Mother Earth)

 

Every woman working to improve her own position in society or that of women in general is bringing about the end of God.  All feminists are making the world less and less like the one described in the Bible, and are thus helping to lessen the influence of Christ and YAHWEH on society.

— Naomi R. Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods
(Beacon Books, Boston, 1979), p.10,
quoted in DAUGHTERS OF BABYLON
         Rebellion, Witchcraft and Women's Liberation
by Alan Morrison 

 

Religion and culture are ever changing, ever transforming. . . . We are the transformer, maker and creator of our own religious and cultural traditions.2

— "Women, Religion, and Culture" seminar, 
UN Conference on Women, Beijing, 
quoted at the beginning of From Father God to Mother Earth

 

Jesus (Deity: Associated With Peace, Forgiveness. AKA: Prince of Peace)

— According to the dictionary contained at 
"Mystic Haven — The Source Of Information For The Modern Wiccan," 
which contains a listing of about 1,350 deities and gods but 
doesn't mention Christ once and "truth" only three times.

 

Countless examples could be given of the feminists' obsession with actively and militantly opposing and destroying Christianity – the foundation of Western civilization, it's Christianity-based, absolute moral standards – and thereby civilization itself.  For a treatise of the history of the motivation and impact on society of the feminist ideology in that respect, refer to DAUGHTERS OF BABYLONRebellion, Witchcraft and Women's Liberation, by Alan Morrison.

A summary of it all is given in the following: 

 

The strongest force seeking to destroy traditional religions is feminism.  Radical feminists have little use for religion or churches as they are, but they do not leave the churches whose doctrines and liturgies they find objectionable.  They work within to change the churches so that the final product will bear little resemblance to Christianity.

 — Robert H. Bork in Slouching Towards Gomorrah (p. 287)

Of course, religions – and not only the Christian religions but all monotheistic religions – are not the only thing that the feminists are changing from within, but what is intended to be explored for the purpose of this Web page is the ideological aspect of the relationship between feminism and religions – and thereby the source of feminism's destructiveness.

For a comprehensive review of the feminist agenda, of the full extent of the strategy to destroy traditional religions from within and to bring about a return to paganism, have a look at the transcript of a speech delivered by Antonia Feitz at the Inverell Forum 2000, 2/3/00:

THE REAL GOAL OF FEMINISM: TRANSFORMING SOCIETY

Religions are what made us, what made civilization.  They are also reflections of our spiritual needs and thereby part of the cycle of feedback that plays an important role in the evolution of civilization.  Before there were families, history, communities, law and order – all of which grew out of religions that became monotheistic – there was savagery, the age of the caveman.

Have none of the feminists who are attempting to make God over in her image ever considered that it was the order brought through traditional religions that made it possible for civilization to come into existence?  Have they never thought about what state humanity was in before that?  How can any rational person claim that by going back to the culture of the stone age civilization will be empowered to make progress?

In the absence of order all that remains is chaos. 


We live in a closed world and a closed society.  Feminism is ostensibly about the promotion of the rights and privileges of women.  Any given human rights movement attempting to redistribute "equality" can address only a fixed amount of "social equity" (the good will and benefits that arise out of community-spiritedness).  New social equity can't be created out of a vacuum.  The creation and equitable distribution of social equity requires the cooperation of both sexes.  Anyone's entitlement to rights and privileges comes at the expense of all or at least many others in society.  Without a single exception, the entitlements of one become the obligations of someone else.

There is absolutely nothing new about that sort of recent development.  The trend is nothing but a continuation of the chivalry by "men" of the Victorian age (politicians, judges and lawyers) who did their best to give women — in the name of liberating them from male oppression — more and more privileges at the expense of common men.  In that fashion The Fraud of Feminism (1913, by Belfort Bax) has been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (1908, by Belfort Bax).

_____________
Note: The Internet Archive does not always produce results for those two preceding links. However, the two pieces by Belfort Bax can be found and accessed in other locations on the Net. You can use, for example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

In WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, Warren Farrell explains that men and women are equally powerless but that men and boys are being indoctrinated to admire women and to follow career paths that enable men to give women what women want.  For example:

What Are Boys Good For?

What does a teenage girl learn to give to a boy? Let's look at a thirteen-page spread in Teen-the Christmas 1984 issue. Approx­imately seventy presents are mentioned, with an average price of about thirty dollars (over two thousand dollars' [close to US$5,000 in 2007 dollars — F4L] worth of presents). Only one is for a male-pajamas for a baby boy. As with Ms., no presents for boyfriends.
    There are several teenage boys shown in the pictures. One admires a girl while she admires herself in the mirror; another is towing a girl's brand-new car. The same use of men as in Self.
   
Is the girl in the Teen spread helping the boy who has attached her car to a tow truck? No. She drapes herself over the tow truck. And how does she learn to handle a stressful situation? The caption explains: "If a stressful situation causes complexion concerns, keep skin under control with Noxzema Acne 12. And pass the time in an easy-to-wear wardrobe!"
    All twelve days of Christmas run the same pattern: "Keep tabs on your weight," "File your nails ... ," "Massage your hands," "Massage your feet," "Turn heads in your direction by keeping lips lusciously lubricated .... " What does he get? Nothing is mentioned but her beauty. What lessons does he learn? Admire and rescue. [Emphasis by F4L] In Teen. In Ms. In Self.
   
Do teenage boys' magazines show a girl towing his brand-new car, while he drapes himself over her tow truck and worries about his acne? Hardly.
    In men's magazines there are only a few gifts for men to buy women. Remember the principle of the De Beers transfer. She chooses the diamond and chooses among the men her beauty power can attract to buy it. Which is why his ads are for how to become successful enough to buy whatever she chooses; hers are to become beautiful enough to be able to make the choice of both the gift and the man to buy the gift. Men's magazines do not feature many gifts for women because men are expected to do the buying after consulting the women, not the magazine, and to concentrate their energies on making the money.

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p 34-35

Once they become men (or perhaps even sooner), men (or boys) begin to catch on.  For example:

Why is changing a light bulb always a guy's job? Because women have more important things to do - like making men feel useful and important by giving them things to do, like changing light bulbs.

How many divorced men does it take to change a light bulb? None. They never get the house anyway.

Edmonton Journal,
2007 08 28, p. B2, Venting
(more at edmontonjournal.com Online Extras - Venting)

It will take quite some time yet, however, before a majority of society gets Warren Farrell's message expressed in the following.

One of the fascinating parts about men is our tendency to subject ourselves to war, physical abuse, and psychological abuse and call it "power." The ability to be totally out of control while continuing to view ourselves as the ones with the power can have certain advantages to a woman. As expressed in this poem:

One-Night Stand

He bought me drinks all evening
   in response to just a wink
Then accepted my invitation to
   repair my kitchen sink
Then I brought him into beddy-bye
   to get a little sex
Then couldn't help but smile
   when he called it conquest!

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p. 289

That story, translated into a joke that is far more ironic than it is funny, goes like this:

An Irishman an Englishman and a Scotsman were sitting in a bar in Sydney. The view was fantastic, the beer excellent, and the food exceptional. "But" said the Scotsman, "I still prefer the pubs back home. Why, in Glasgow there's a little bar called McTavish's. Now the landlord there goes out of his way for the locals so much that when you buy 4 drinks he will buy the 5th drink for you."

"Well," said the Englishman "at my local, the Red Lion, the barman there will buy you your 3rd drink after you buy the first 2."

"Ahhh that's nothin'," said the Irishman, "Back home in Dublin there's Ryan's Bar. Now the moment you set foot in the place they'll buy you a drink, then another, all the drinks you like. Then when you've had enough drink they'll take you upstairs and see that you get laid. All on the house."

The Englishman and Scotsman immediately pour scorn on the Irishman's claims. He swears every word is true.

"Well," said the Englishman, "Did this actually happen to you?" 

"Not myself personally, no" said the Irishman, "but it did happen to my sister."

found at angryharry.com

Men's problem is that women's "powerlessness" has been amply addressed throughout the history of evolution, intensively so since the advent of radical feminism [*], but that men's powerlessness received little or no attention. Instead, men curry women's favors by giving women gifts, even the gift of men's lives.
   While in the past men were enticed to live up to the social duties imposed upon them with promises that they would be paid back for that through society paying them appreciation, honour and respect, today — thanks to decades of feminist slandering of men, intended to "increase" the social value of women — men are being vilified for being men, and not much else matters.

* If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the Roots of Radical Feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Men's problem is that women's "powerlessness" has been amply addressed throughout the history of evolution, intensively so since the advent of radical feminism,  but that men's powerlessness received little or no attention.  Instead, men curry women's favors by given women gifts, even the gift of men's lives.

That is what is at the very heart of the clash between civilization and feminism.  A civilized society stresses the obligations of an individual to society and to others.  A feminized society stresses selfishness and self-centeredness, and calls that "raising self-esteem" * and "promoting equal rights for women."  It begs the question how one can promote "equal" rights for anyone or any group by focusing only on the needs and wants of an individual or an individual group, to the exclusion of the needs and wants of all others and not even paying any attention to the obligations arising to others out of that.  Is that not downright un-Christian and, if not that, at least uncivilized? * Update 2008 05 11: It is strongly recommended to take a look at "SHOULD SCHOOLS TRY TO BOOST SELF-ESTEEM? Beware the dark side", by Roy F. Baumeister

If one looks at the premises of traditional religions, they all appear to agree on one fundamental principle.  That is that there are two sexes who are different but equal, that were created by God in His image, to worship and honour Him, but that were also especially created to ensure the propagation and well-being of the human species and not merely the well-being of isolated individuals or a single sex.

It is argued by some that women were short-changed in the balance of power between the sexes as a result of these premises of the traditional religions.  It is doubtful that this is or ever was generally true – it most certainly isn't true in modern times.  Never before in the evolution of mankind have women been less "oppressed" than they are now, and never before in the history of mankind have women complained as much that they are being oppressed.  When in the history of mankind has it ever happened that individual members of an oppressed class lived on average so many years longer (depending on country, between five and 14 years) than the average individual in the class that is ostensibly doing the oppressing?
   The ultimate power in any household is held by the woman.  Virtually all husbands who ever had the illusion that they could rule the roost were soon cured of it.  They found that they were confronted with the harsh reality that the man may rule the roost, but that the woman rules the rooster. 
   The reality is simple.  It is that husbands must choose between domination of their families on the one hand and peaceful and loving coexistence on the other.  Any who try to dominate will soon find that the price they pay is the discomforts of sandwiches they make for themselves instead of sitting down to eat pot roasts made by their wives, the discomfort of cool if not icy interpersonal relationships between the spouses, and perhaps the discomfort of a cold bed to boot.  In other words, they'll experience the death of love.

The many factions of feminism express to varying extents the wish to elevate the status of women over the status of men to establish "a more equitable balance" of power.  That is clearly contrary to Christian premises about family relationships, which generally propose that women should submit themselves to men.  It is also clearly a manifestation of female chauvinism.
   However, as stated above, submission is really no more than an illusion.  It should more properly be thought of as the promise to be true to one man for life, the acceptance that men are more naturally suited to be providers and protectors, that only women are equipped to bear children, and that at least for some time in their lives women are handicapped in their attempts to assume the role of being providers, if they wish to do so. 
   Even that would be true only if we were to consider that specific biological attribute of women, to be the bearers of new life, as a handicap and not as a blessing.  It is the nature of things according to the will of God for it to be that way.  It is ludicrous to blame men for the reality of biology.  It is even more ludicrous to promote hatred against men on account of that.

Kali-Bobbitt, an anti-Christian and anti-male piece of "art" by Mary Beth Edelson, in the Guggenheim Museum.  It is used to glorify Lorena Bobbitt's assault on her husband, during which she cut off his penis while he was sleeping.
(click on the image to see a larger version)

Regardless of how many people claim that women are equally suited to serve as providers and protectors, as long as we have compulsory military service and mandatory front-line duties in war only for men (150 women in the Canadian armed forces have chosen to be in active combat positions), that is the general consensus of society — women included — in spite of all claims to the contrary.

That is all contrary to the wishes of feminists, who invariably feel that what the traditional religions ask for can't be reconciled with what feminists want, the right to their bodies, the right to love who they want—regardless of sex—at any time they want, the right to own their own destinies, their "own children", their own families without interference and or control by men, and most of all their right to dominate in all aspects of society—"because men have done so much of the latter for too long." 
   That is the dilemma.  Few if any of those wishes can be reconciled with Christianity or any of the premises of other traditional religions.  It must therefore come as no surprise that feminists are trying their best to change and revise existing religions and that they fail to do so only in few and rare instances.  They largely succeed to establish new religions of their own that revive the worship of old gods (invariably of the female variety) or even invent new ones (also invariably of the female variety). 
   It appears that to be a feminist means to oppose the teachings of the moral basis that is the foundation of Judeo-Christian religions as much as that of other traditional religions.  It may be possible to be a promoter of women's rights within traditional religious doctrine and belief, but it is neither logical nor possible to be a feminist and a Christian at the same time.

As Berit Kjos tells us in "A Twist of Faith", someone like "Janie Spahr, co-founder of CLOUT (Christian Lesbians Out Together), links sex to sacredness, seems at ease [in cloaking sex in spirituality].  'Sexuality and spirituality have come together, and Church, we're going to teach you!" she announced at the Re-imagining conference.  Her theology, she explained, is first of all informed by "making love with Coni," her lesbian lover.' " [A Twist of Faith—Sex and Sacredness]  It seems that someone like that, if a vestige of Christianity still exists in her mind, could at best be described as a heretic, and that would be a kindness.

It should come as no surprise that feminists have a particularly difficult time to live up to the requirement of the First Commandment.  The First Commandment is the foundation for all others. 
   It isn't possible to call for the violation of the remaining nine commandments without violating the first one before all others.  If the First Commandment is breached, all remaining commandments become worthless. 
   Without any doubt, throughout the history of mankind religion adapted to contemporary social contexts, but never before in history has it been attempted to do away with all of the fundamental premises of the moral foundations on which our religions are based.  Never before in the history of Judeo-Christian religions has it been attempted to do away with the Ten Commandments.  Never before has it been attempted by anyone who called himself a Christian to eliminate or to replace God.

Link Byfield, the publisher of the Alberta Report (now the Report Newsmagazine [no longer published]), states: "…this impulse to flee religion is itself another form of idolatry, for it is not a flight, it is a substitution.  Worship of anything except God is idolatry, and today we idolize the Self," and

"What is the most deadly sin?  Low self-esteem.  If all this doesn't constitute worship, nothing does.
   What brought this to mind last week was our story about Okanagan University College (OUC) in Kelowna.  In response to a special homosexual promotion in the campus newspaper, members of the University Christian Ministries ran a counter-advertisement promoting chastity therapy.  In it, a reformed drag queen testified that Christ has given him his "true identity as a man," and today he is happily married to a former lesbian.
   No big deal, you might think, but you would be wrong.  A letter signed by 20 students raged that the ad exemplified how Christ's mission perpetuates violence against poor people, homosexuals and pro-abortionists.  Another student demanded the total elimination of Christianity.  A former staff member of the newspaper said that he had given up on defending free speech because it is used to inflict "psychological genocide" upon homosexuals like himself. …"

    [Alberta Report April 28, 1997, Internet Edition,
LETTER FROM THE PUBLISHER]

See also Unholy Tolerance


feminist logic: It's not fascism when we do it!

Ye Goddesses!

By Diane L. Knippers Thursday, May 28th, 1998

From Foundations magazine

Notes from the Front Lines of Radical Feminism

http://www.littletrinity.on.ca/links/news.html (It's the URL of the original article.  Scroll down to "Notes from the Front Lines of Radical Feminism" or search for "Front Lines")

A week after I observed a joyous Easter in my own home parish — celebrating the victory of our risen Lord over death and sin — I stood in a packed ballroom in St. Paul, MN, at a very different kind of religious gathering.

There some 900 churchwomen raised their voices in song.  But the praises were sung to "Sophia," rather than to Jesus Christ.  Rather than the Eucharist, the central liturgy was a "milk and honey ceremony," during which the communicants were invited to "savor the life-giving juices of our bodies and the planet."  The sins denounced were homophobia, environmental abuse, Western imperialism, structural adjustment, and welfare "deform."  But other kinds of sin, particularly sexual, were not addressed because "in the heart and soul of the deities, it doesn't matter who we're sleeping with."

The occasion was the "Re-Imagining Revival," a four-day extravaganza of radical feminist [more accurately called redfem —WHS] theology and worship - in which Episcopalians had an unbecomingly large hand.  The Re-Imagining Movement burst on the American religious scene with a notorious 1993 conference that sent shock waves through several major denominations.  The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which had funded the first Re-Imagining conference with an organizational grant of $65,000, had millions of dollars withheld by protesting congregations.  In response, the PCUSA distanced itself from the movement it had helped birth.

Today, only the far-left United Church of Christ will publicly fund Re-Imagining.  But the independent Re-Imagining community remains influential in the so-called "mainline" denominations as the vanguard institution of feminist theology, the most prominent theological trend on mainline seminary campuses today.  In addition to its influences on the next generation of U.S. clergy, Re-Imagining also holds sway in laywomen's organizations.  In 1998, the venerable ecumenical group, Church Women United, is honoring five women theologians as "sacred storytellers" and "prophetic voices."  Four of the five spoke at the first Re-Imagining Conference.

One of the most controversial Re-Imagining theologians is Delores Williams, who in 1993 defiantly proclaimed, "I don't think we need a theory of atonement at all. I don't think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff."  An unrepentant Williams was back at the 1998 "revival."  She spoke in glowing terms of a San Francisco church that places "no salvific emphasis on death, no large cross, no symbols of the value of innocent death." Yet Williams claimed that she wasn't trying to "throw out" the cross, simply to "reinterpret it."  The Re-Imagining religion is a quintessential baby-boomer faith - a do-it-yourself, pick-and-choose, therapeutic, intuitive, post-modern religion.  Or, as my colleague Janice Crouse termed it, "a tapestry of theological tomfoolery."

Ultimately, the object of Re-Imagining worship is women themselves.  God is reconceived in the image of women, women's suffering is the means of atonement, women's stories offer the way of salvation, and women in community mark the "Reign" (but not the patriarchal-sounding "Kingdom") of God.

While much of traditional Christianity is demeaned by Re-Imaginers - references to the ancient, ecumenical Nicene Creed were met with hoots of derisive laughter - Re-Imaginers are eager to appropriate other religious traditions.

Mari Castellanos urged participants to embrace the Virgin of Guadelupe as the unifying "goddess of the Americas."  She continued: "Mary is part of the composite of ancient, current and future manifestations of the one who will not be suppressed, the ageless and universal sisterhood: Isis, Aphrodite, Brigid,[1] whom I propose to you is the one whom we must continue to re-imagine."  Indeed, goddesses are de rigueur at Re-Imagining.

At the 1993 conference, Chung Hyun Kyung commended her "new trinity" of three Asian goddesses - the Hindu Kali, the Buddhist Kwan-Yin, and the indigenous Ina of the Philippines.[1]  The 1996 conference boasted a goddess wall with over 30 images of ancient and contemporary goddesses with instructions on how to approach or pray to each.

Carter Heyward, a professor of theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA, denounced the classic Christian teaching that Jesus is uniquely the Son of God.  But Heyward's major work is on developing a highly eroticized version of Christianity to suit her own flaunted lesbianism.  She suggests that Jesus couldn't have been really human if he wasn't sexually active.

She told of a seminar she is teaching on "queer theology," in which she and her students enjoy a "transgendering experience."  Even some of the re-imaginers have limits as to how far they will follow Heyward.

She defended her recent book, When Boundaries Betray Us: Beyond Illusions of What is Ethical in Therapy and Life, which criticized the boundaries of Western medical ethics that deny intimacy (or "healing of love") in therapeutic relationships.

"Did she say what I think she said?"  I overhead women ask after Heyward spoke.  But Heyward, who has also praised the liberating qualities of President Clinton's "sex play," made herself quite clear: "Participating Sunday upon Sunday, year after year, in the rites of the Book of Common Prayer is likely to be more fundamentally damaging to many women and girls' sense of self-esteem than a sexual come-on by a sleazy priest is to most."

Re-Imagining speakers did not neglect the concerns of the political left either.  Beverly Harrison, a professor of Christian ethics at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, denounced "family values" advocates who she said want to "kill the queers" and who hate women who have abortions.  She bemoaned the demise of unions and the influence of the Bretton Woods institutions that "controlled world economy."

In the end, however, the heart of Re-Imagining is less in its words and more in its rituals.  The program notes explain the power of the milk and honey ceremony: "A cup of milk and honey crosses into the pre-symbolic, the physicality of breasts and milk and infants."  The conference opened with primeval and pagan overtones - a darkened room, throbbing drums, and a single bonfire in the center. "We call upon spirits, we call upon you from the past," explain the program notes.  Light bouncing off a revolving disco ball gave an illusion of rotating stars, the creation of the Cosmos.

The chorus enjoined, "First Woman, tell us of your time, we summon you."

First Woman responded with hesitation, "Do you summon me for shame, for ridicule, for scorn?"  No, they answer, "We summon you for wisdom."  First Woman greets them: "I am of the earth, I am water, I am spirit, Sacrament of Holy Light.  I am of the earth.  I am of the stars."

The conference ended with another Re-imagining tradition, making even clearer who First Woman is.  Re-Imagining participants shared biting into large red apples to express their solidarity with Eve.  Christian theology teaches that Eve and her husband Adam introduced sin into God's good creation through their disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit.

But to Re-Imaginers, Eve is a heroine who sought wisdom and knowledge.  As they bit into the apples, they were enjoined to "Rejoice in our resistance, in our solidarity with all women who seek to be the Word of God.  Let the bite be not only our communion with earth .... To bite the apple is to recommit ourselves to resisting all those forces who oppress us." [2]

Perhaps predictably, the two speakers — out of eleven — who were remotely orthodox were from Africa.  Brigalia Bam, an Anglican from South Africa, and Musimbi Kanyoro, a Lutheran from Kenya, were apparently chosen for their work to raise the status of women.  Kanyoro, in particular, defended the idea of a sinless Jesus.

It's tempting to dismiss Re-Imagining as a colorful sideshow at the fringes of the Christian church.  But these people intend to take over.  At caucus meetings of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics and others, they discussed strategies for survival and expansion.

Some 23 of us gathered at the Episcopal Caucus, which was convened by a staff member of the Women in Mission and Ministry (WIMM), based at the Episcopal Church Center in New York.  Some of the time was spent exchanging information on WIMM programs such as the "Creative Journey" workshops, the Journal of Women's Ministries, or The Year Round Women's Calendar for 1998 ("Think in Circles! Break out of the box of linear thinking .... Designed to celebrate the unique cycles of a woman's body, mind, spirit, and soul....)

One participant enthusiastically recommended a United Church of Christ resource, Rise Up and Call Her Name.  But she noted, "My priest wouldn't let me use it.  He said it wasn't Christian."

The concerns of those gathered ranged from how to support same-sex "marriage" to developing "creative new liturgies without saying the Nicene Creed."

There was considerable discussion over what to call women priests and a desire for a national church policy on the matter.  "Mother" was rejected by some as reflecting the same "problem of parental power" as " Father."[3]  "Pastor" seemed the preferred alternative. (I personally support the ordination of women, but this hardly seemed the most important issue for me.  Perhaps that's just because in low church Virginia we more frequently call our priests by their first names.)

Several seemed discouraged - worried because friends were leaving the church because of "fundamentalist theology," feeling "beat down by male language in the liturgy," decrying "oppressive structures."  They deplored the classism, elitism, and racism of the Episcopal Church.  One young woman worried about entering the process of becoming a priest because of "repressive" bishops. (And she was from New England!)  Others appeared more hopeful, admonishing the group to take heart and keep working.

In fact, I was struck by the similarities of the complaints (in terms of process and emotional response, not in substance) between these women and those in conservative circles with whom I usually hang out.  One woman even worried over whether they should stay in the church or leave it.  I commented on these similarities, noted that a solution often discussed by conservatives was non-geographical dioceses, and asked if liberals ever discussed this option.  One woman candidly acknowledged that the idea was tainted because of its right-wing origins.  Another explained that it would be prohibitively expensive for smaller parishes.  I urged them to consider the matter further, arguing that if they were so willing to re-imagine theology and liturgy, they might be willing to re-imagine church structure. I got no takers.

The Re-Imagining ideas are having an influence in the church, no matter how beleaguered some Re-Imaginers appear.  In an open committee meeting at General Convention last summer, I heard a bishop echo Delores Williams' thought by advocating the rethinking of the church's eucharistic theology of sacrifice, which he claimed had been used to justify the abuse of women and children.

Nor are Re-Imaginers just influencing bishops and seminary professors.  They are particularly aiming at teenagers and younger girls, through workshops and seminars.  Donna Hailson, an evangelical theologian and expert on new age and neo-pagan religions attended Re-Imagining with me. Hailson warns, "The cults are the unpaid bills of the church."  Re-Imagining provides "safe space" for women who have been deeply hurt by men, and some who have been hurt by mainstream Christian churches.  It offers exciting and lively worship rituals and freedom to question and explore theologically.

I left Re-Imagining aware that the church must respond to legitimate needs of a significant number of women in our society.  So, yes, there needs to be denunciation of Re-Imagining excesses and disciplining of church leaders who propound those excesses.  But the church must also respond in three crucial ways:

  1. Provide compassionate, relational ministries to those who have been abused.

  2. Engage in vital and creative worship (worship that won't bore worshippers or God).

  3. Offer more serious theological training so that well-meaning seekers can sift through heretical opinions and recognize timeless truth.

___________________
Diane L. Knippers is president of the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy.  She also serves on the Executive Committee of the American Anglican Council.

Foundations, May, 1998


My Notes:

  1. The goddesses:

  • Aphrodite: the Greek goddess of love and beauty
  • Ashtoreth: Hebrew for Astarte
  • Astarte: the Phoenician goddess of fertility and sexual love
  • Brigid: Irish fire goddess — so they say.  Ode to Brigid, Fire Goddess, Imbolc, the feast of light, Brigid's day (A search using the string <+Brigid +goddess> returned 6,555 URLs)
  • Gaya: more correctly (according to Websters) called Gaea, the Greek earth goddess and mother of the Titans. [Source: Vicky's web page -- sorry the URL no longer functions]  (A search using the string <+Gaya +goddess> returned 160 URLs, however, a search using the correct spelling "Gaea" produced 5,160 URLs) It's interesting to see what Gaea was all about. (The feminists would say "is all about."  After all, they don't simply take a historical interest in deities.  They claim that their gods are real.)

"GAEA or GE, in Greek mythology, the personification of Mother Earth, and the daughter of Chaos.  She was the mother and wife of Father Heaven, who was personified as Uranus.  They were the parents of the earliest living creatures, the Titans, the Cyclopes, and the Giants the Hecatoncheires (Hundred-Headed Ones).  Fearing and hating the monsters, although they were his sons, Uranus imprisoned them in a secret place in the earth, leaving the Cyclopes and Titans at large.  Gaea, enraged at this favoritism, persuaded her son, the Titan Cronus, to overthrow his father.  He emasculated Uranus, and from his blood Gaea brought forth another race of monsters, the Giants, and the three avenging goddesses the Erinyes.  Her last and most terrifying off-spring was Typhon, a 100-headed monster, who, although conquered by the god Zeus, was believed to spew forth the molten lava flows of Mount Etna."

Not a very appealing lady, that one.  The daughter of Chaos, giving birth to nothing but monsters. But how could that be otherwise, with her being the mother and the wife of Uranus, having begotten her monsters by him.  No wonder that the Earth has never been a very safe place for humans to live on.
   Why would anyone want to adulate this incestuous woman?  Well, maybe there is a reason why the feminists are so endeared with her.  She would be the model for all women who are violent by proxy.  Gaea weedled her son Cronos into castrating his own dad.  That's a pretty picture for any redfem that ever called for the elimination and neutralization (should that be neutering?) of all men.  That is supposed to take the place of Christianity?

Many people wonder how all of this could come about, how such ancient religions could become once more so prominent.  Given that we know absolutely nothing about prehistoric ritual, dogma, or doctrine, all of what is being touted in that respect is being freely interpreted and invented, based on nothing but wild imagination (or hot air, if you prefer that) in some creative, innovative minds.  The education system is the only vehicle by which these wild modern religious beliefs can be spread.
   That brings about another question.  How would anyone persuade any sane student to accept these wild flights of fancy?  It is the power of the teachers who use these religions as tools in the indoctrination of young minds, that's how.  Consider the questions posed at the end of one of the seminars on Greek "history" dealing with prehistoric Andalusian women:  

Main Questions (Source: http://homer.reed.edu/GkHist/Mutterrecht.html, a URL pointed to by a link on Vicky's web page.  The file name of the document "Mutterrecht" is the German term for "Mother's right" or "Mother's law.")  

  1. What is the nature of the evidence for the religious beliefs and practices of the inhabitants of Europe and Asia during the Stone Age?

  2. Does the archaeological record support the idea that a population of pre-Indo-European people lived in pacific and/or matriarchal communities, or that certain Indo-European speakers did?

  3. How have modern concepts of spirituality influenced people's thinking on this issue? 

If you have trouble coming up with the right answers to these questions, you won't fail, but if the students who take such a course don't provide the desired answers (it doesn't matter that nothing can be proven to be right or wrong), they do fail!   Aside from that, the contradiction of discussion "prehistoric" women's lives as fact (nothing like that can be known about anything that is prehistoric) never enters these ideologists' minds.

Gods, Goddesses and other Invocations  (Part 1, Part 2) "It's all perspective." (whatever that may mean)  Overkill appears to be a requirement in promoting new gods in a deluge of names that quite possibly includes the names of some people's dogs, and the list is growing!  Although it is explicitly stated by the author of the list that " [she isn't] discriminating against anyone by not listing cert[ai]n gods," it is hard to accept that she forgot to list the name of the Son of God "Christ".  However, she did list "Jesus (Prince of Peace)".  Nevertheless, Jehovah, Yahweh or any other versions of the name of God are absent.  That could be possible if none of the names of other gods mentioned in the Holy Bible had been mentioned, but they were.  The Bible must have been one of the books mentioned from which the list was compiled.  Are we truly assumed to be so gullible as to be thought to believe that anyone who is promoting the names of 1350 sundry gods forgot without any ulterior motives to list the names of the one God of the majority of the world population?

    It seems to me that the answer to that question is in the fact that of all of the gods listed only three are mentioned in connection with the term "truth".  However, here is the introduction to the web page containing the first part of the index of gods at the Mystic Haven — The Source Of Information For The Modern Wiccan:  

"This is simply a list of those entities through which pockets of psychic and mystic energies are tapped.  This is not a complete list of gods and goddesses and I'm not discriminating against anyone by not listing cert[ai]n gods.  If you have a reason why your gods, goddesses, or other preferred invocation should be listed then send it to me and I'll post them.  You may notice that some gods and goddesses are listed under two or more different names (like Bast, and Bastet) when they preform [sic] similar functions.  That is for both the exposure to the other names and also to appease those that feel different names bring about different effects.  Some of the forces mentioned have both good and evil powers much like Wiccans.  I am not advocating the use of Black Magic or any of the darker purposes but I am letting people know that they are used that way.  One of the best ways to prevent a curse is to ask it's endower to cease.  I know that some of them are credited with several different conflicting powers like air magic and fire magic.  That's generally because people will see entities in different ways.   A birth god can mean death to someone else.   It's all perspective.   This particular list was the result of several different books and websites with some information being adapted from Open, Sesame by Eileen Holland."

  • Great mother of the gods: Ishtar, from which all other related names and concepts appear to have been derived.  The important aspect of the concept is this: "The later forms of her cult involved the worship of a male deity (her son, lover [and brother], e.g., ADONIS, OSIRIS), whose death and resurrection symbolized the regenerative power of the earth."
  • Ishtar: ancient fertility deity, the most widely worshiped goddess in Babylonian and Assyrian religion…a mother goddess, goddess of  love, and goddess of war. (See also great mother of the gods)
  • Ina (Deity: Associated With The Moon) according the dictionary contained at "Mystic Haven — The Source Of Information For The Modern Wiccan"
  • Isis: an Egyptian nature goddess, the wife and sister of Osiris, who in turn is the Egyptian god of the underworld and the husband and brother of Isis.  Isis and Osiris produced a son Horus
  • Jesus (Deity: Associated With Peace, Forgiveness. AKA: Prince of Peace) according to the dictionary contained at "Mystic Haven — The Source Of Information For The Modern Wiccan"
  • Juno (Deity: Associated With Abundance, The Animal Unicorn, The Astrological Sign Sagittarius, Business, The Fourth Cabalistic Sphere Chesed *Mercy*, Civility, ~The Colors Deep Blue And Royal Purple~, The Day Thursday, Deflating An Ego, The Elements Air And Fire, Expansion, Fame, Family, Fertility, ~The Gemstones Amethyst, Chrysolite, Sapphire, Turquoise, Lapis Lazuli~, Group Work, Growth, Happiness, Health, Honor, The Incenses Cedar And Nutmeg, Increase, Leadership, The Letter D, Love, Luck, Male Fertility, The Metal Tin, The Moon, The Numbers 4 And 5, Opportunity, The Planet Jupiter, ~The Plants Agrimony, Anise, Ash, Balm, Betony, Bloodroot, Borage, Cinquefoil, Clover, Dandelion, Hyssop, Juniper Berries, Mint, Mistletoe, Nutmeg, Oak~, Politics, Power, Praise, Responsability, Royalty, Society, Success, The Sun, Sympathy, The Time Between Winter Solistice And The Vernal Equinix, Tolerance, The Tones So And A, Wealth.) according to the dictionary contained at "Mystic Haven — The Source Of Information For The Modern Wiccan"
  • Kali: the Hindu goddess of destruction, the wife of Siva (Webster's)
  • Ostara: derived from the Teutonic goddess Eostre or Eastre [source: encyclopedia.com], the goddess of Spring who gives fertility to the earth, also referred to as Aphrodite, Asherah, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Diana, Ianna, Ishtar, Isis, Semiramis, Venus… (A search using the string <+Ostara +goddess> returned 5,530 URLs)
  • Siva: the third god of the Hindu Trim—rti or triad, representing the principle of destruction and of reproduction (Webster's)
  • Sophia: "…the Goddess of Wisdom.  In the Mediterranean world in the first century, Sophia was a beacon to Christians, Jews, Gnostics and Pagans alike. "The Book of Wisdom" says: "Wisdom I loved; I sought her out when I was young and longed to win her for my bride, and I fell in love with her beauty... So I determined to bring her home to live with me, knowing that she would be my counsellor in prosperity and my comfort in anxiety and grief".

  [Source: Van Morrison's Glossary entry  It's an interesting view.  Unfortunately, like virtually all of feminist research, it is without a reference to a source and therefore not verifiable.  But, what the heck, the search returned 4,650 URLs and this one is as good (or as bad) as any of those.  Nevertheless, Van Morrison's glossary entry could make history if the claim that he quotes in his entry becomes proven.  Fortunately, it will probably be a long time before anyone dares to manufacture proof that Sophia ever was the proclaimed beacon for the 1st century Christians or the Jews of that era.  I suppose when that "proof" is produced it will be proposed that it will comprise the new holy bible. ]

  • Trim—rti: the name of the Hindu triad, or the gods Brahma, Vishnu and Siva when thought of as inseparable unity, though three in form.  (Webster's) It's odd that any feminist would want to promote Kali, who appears to be able to lay claim to greatness and rank only in submitting herself in marriage to a superior god, Siva, who is male and part of a triad of male gods.

The list isn't exhaustive.  Who'll decide which particular set of goddesses will be the official one?  At the Beijing Conference on Women they adored and adulated a set of thirty (including some of those shown in the list above) on a special wall dedicated to them.
    Well, if you ask me, I don't recommend the resurrection of all those ancient religions.  The feminists who promote them will be in for a great disappointment if they are looking for freedom, because when those religions were in place there was little freedom and equality for women.
    However, if they want to promote a specific one, they should use the ancient Egyptian religion, because under it, with the help of untold legions of slaves that were obtained through constantly recurring wars, and with the help of a powerful male caste of priests, the Pharaos managed to build their pyramids and keep their society in the stone age for thousands of years.
    Let's face it.  They didn't have much progress of any kind in their society, except for inventing the precursor of paper—which of course is a great advance, compared to writing on stone, in the sand or even on clay or wax tablets.  Why in the world would anyone want to go back to that, unless one is bent on dogmatic social rigidity and ossification?  And back to that we'll go if the eco-feminists and other feminist factions have their way.  Feminist love and peace?  War, destruction, and social strife and domination seem to be inextricably linked with it all.
    Even the feminists have a hard time escaping the unavoidable fact that they too are only human.

All that unites the religious, theological and moral chaos of the feminists is a universal desire to have sexual freedom and freedom from all other absolute moral standards, most of all, it is pervaded by a universal wish to be free of the bounds and moral obligations of Christianity and any other traditional religion.  The wish to be religious is there, in accordance with the basic human need for it, but as long as these religions demand anything from women, none of them are considered valid any longer, unless they can be twisted in "Her" image.

We better take to heart what Robert H. Bork recommends in Slouching Towards Gomorrah as a solution to our social dilemmas.  He urges in the last part of his book that we'll have to take back our society, school by school, church by church, institution by institution and community by community.
    It will be a long and hard struggle, but the truth will win in the end, because the truth is with God and God is the truth.  There is nothing else.

  1. That's somewhat like celebrating the mass with the crucifix turned upside down, isn't it?  It's not quite as ostentatious as some of the satanic rituals but possibly far more subversive, because it seems to be innocent.   It is puzzling that the feminists permit such an anachronism to creep into their new religion.  Although apples are mentioned in some translations of the Bible, they were not indigenous to the area in which Sophia ostensibly was a "beacon".  Why don't the feminists pick a fruit that is more representative of what would have been consumed then and there?  At least that might do something for international trade.  It might even improve their credibility a bit.  They need that, in addition to the ability to think just a little bit more logically.

  2. That's right in line with what is prescribed by the grammar checker of Microsoft Word.  The grammar checker promotes some wondrous contortions, so as to how to make our language more "gender neutral."   According to Microsoft, father and mother aren't politically correct terms any longer, but there are many more terms that Microsoft discourages you from using.  Give it a try if you can.  It's an eye opener, and it's effective although clearly subversive.  Many terms that used to reinforce moral principles in our language are not much in use any longer.  Although their use is clearly not illegal, they are disappearing from our language.  However, people at Microsoft bring that about, spurned on by such people as the women that will celebrate mass adulating Sophia instead of Christ and who will partake in communion by sharing milk, honey and apples instead of the Eucharist.


Back to The Ten Commandments     The Second Commandment

See also:

____________________
Updates:
1999 07 06
2000 10 15 (to reformat and make some minor edits, also to insert a reference to Daughters of Babylon and to Kali-Bobbitt)
2000 10 25 (to add reference to THE REAL GOAL OF FEMINISM: TRANSFORMING SOCIETY)
2001 01 07 (Removed dead link to original article by Berit Kjos.  The remaining links to the article lead to exact copies.)
2001 01 29 (format changes)
2002 02 14 (updated links to Berit Kjos' A Twist of Faith)
2002 12 22 (format changes)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)
2007 07 29 (added entry for WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE)