Manifested

I've now had a chance to read the "Evangelical Manifesto" that we discussed earlier.

It's rather well done and there's much to commend here. The concluding "Invitation to All" is particularly welcome. So too is what is probably the document's strongest contribution and best hope for achieving what it seeks to accomplish, namely its tone, which is reasonable and almost aggressively civil.

I'm also quite pleased to find that this document, endorsed by some notable and influential leaders in American evangelicalism, includes concern for the poor and the powerless as non-negotiable hallmarks of the faith. And I'm even more pleased that it does so without any sense that such commitments must be over-defended as matters of "controversy." Ditto for the manifesto's repeated references to the stewardship of creation and its fleeting, but welcome, endorsement of "a high view of science" and condemnation of the oppression of women.

There are also several points on which I disagree with the writers and several more points I would need to ask them to clarify. Here, for example:

All too often we have tried to be relevant, but instead of creating "new wineskins for the new wine," we have succumbed to the passing fashions of the moment and made noisy attacks on yesterday’s errors, such as modernism, while capitulating tamely to today’s, such as postmodernism.

The writers here seem to be endorsing something other than "modernism" or "postmodernism," but what that might be isn't quite clear. The logical implication would seem to be pre-modernism, but I'm fairly sure that's not what they mean either.

Postmodern there seems to be a bogeyman word meaning, I take it, all the bad things that it might possibly mean and none of the good. (That's a bit odd in a document that otherwise seems to borrow an awful lot from Stanley Hauerwas.)

Elsewhere the document criticizes fundamentalism as "an essentially modern reaction to the modern world." That's astute, but it's difficult to understand such a critique if a discussion of the failures of modernism, i.e., postmodernism, is forbidden as "error." My best guess here is that what the writers are really on about is what they earlier condemn as "an inadequate view of truth." Their dedication to truth is admirable, but it's also troublesome throughout the document due to their own inadequate view of uncertainty.

One gets the sense that one is reading a document written by people who automatically translate "we cannot be certain" into "there is no truth." This makes it difficult for someone like me, who believes the former but not the latter, to engage what they're saying. In any case a bit of humble, postmodern, chastened, glass-darkly epistemology might have helped to rescue the manifesto's discussion of sola scriptura, which seems premised on the idea that certainty is readily and easily available to us humans. (That notion strikes me as, to borrow a phrase, "an essentially modern reaction to the modern world.")

The other bogeyman word here seems to be "secularism." Making this a bogeyman word leads to some serious confusion in the section of the manifesto subtitled, "A civil rather than a sacred or naked public square." What they're advocating here is secularism, but they've decided they can't call it that, so instead we get a page and a half endorsing secularism and the separation of church and state while simultaneously condemning "secularism" and the "strict separation of church and state." It isn't pretty.

The language they are thus forced to rely on comes from the man who led them into this linguistic mess, from Richard John Neuhaus and his book The Naked Public Square. Neuhaus' big idea there was that secularism is, itself, a kind of religion. Thus, for Neuhaus, a non-sectarian government is really sectarian -- it sides with and privileges non-sectarianism as a kind of state religion. The refusal to impose state-sanctioned sectarian prayer on public school students is thus, in this view, an establishment of the "religion" of secularism. And the refusal to accede to a sectarian argument based primarily on the particular tenets of a sect is thus mere bigotry.

That's just a slightly more sophisticated version of the whole "your 'tolerance' is really just intolerance of my intolerance" shtick, the boilerplate nonsense of bigots attempting to pose as victims. Since the writers of the "Evangelical Manifesto" explicitly condemn "posing as victims" for political gain, they might want to rethink relying on Neuhaus here for the framing of this question.

Where the manifesto ends up on the matter is this:

Our commitment is to a civil public square -- a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too.

"A civil public square" providing a "framework of what is agreed to be just and free" to "citizens of all faiths" regardless of sectarian particulars. If I were on the "$25,000 Pyramid" and Betty White said all that to me, I'd be shouting "secularism! ... separation of church and state!"

But here's my biggest problem with the document. "Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially or culturally," it says on page 4. "Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally," it repeats on page 8.

Amen and amen. But then on page 13 it says this:

We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life. Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman ...

The "A-word" is out of the bag, and I don't suppose there's anything I could write here to prevent that from becoming the sole and heated topic in the comment thread below, but my point here is not the substance of the anti-abortion and anti-gay stances that the authors say they "cannot back away from." Nor do I want to get distracted by the question of whether or not "the holiness of marriage as instituted by God" would be an adequate line of argument "within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too."

My point here is the authors' perception, probably correct, that their call to move "beyond single-issue politics" needed to be followed immediately by an emphatic demonstration of their agreement with the majority of Evangelicals on those two issues. This document is not about those two things, but the authors recognize that unless they reaffirm these positions on these two issues, then none of the people they're trying to reach will listen to another word they say.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not questioning the sincerity of the authors and signatories when they reaffirm these political stances. I am sure they are being perfectly sincere. But what is it that they are doing here with such sincerity? What is the purpose of this ritual reaffirmation?

The authors affirm that they oppose abortion and same-sex marriage in order to demonstrate that they belong, to demonstrate that their voices are legitimate voices in their community, to demonstrate that they are "Evangelicals." And what is the key, the touchstone, the Shibboleth for that demonstration? Two, and only two, political opinions. To be anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality may not be sufficient to demonstrate that one is an Evangelical, but it is necessary -- far more necessary than any given theological or confessional belief.

The manifesto's splendid language about reaching out to "the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures" belongs to a different category. Such opinions are acceptable, perhaps even admirable, but they are not Shibboleths that demonstrate one's valid membership in the community.

Here, then, is the "Evangelical Manifesto." It is an often persuasive and eloquent argument that political and cultural definitions of "Evangelical" are illegitimate. Yet even here -- in the midst of that argument -- the authors cannot avoid bowing to the demands of exactly those political and cultural definitions.

Comments

[Froborr]

Re Beowulf: Sadly, the Grendel fight was probably supposed to be funny.

As for the sexism, well, that's Neil Gaiman for you. Pretty much any time the character Thessaly shows up in Sandman, you know you're in for a weird sexist tangent by the narrator. It's a very 12-year-old attitude to women displayed there -- they're mysterious and dangerous and subtle, to be admired but never trusted.

[twig]

Grendel's mother in the Gaiman reworking wasn't sexist. She was pragmatic. Why bother fighting and dying when you can use people's own desires against them?

Well, I liked her. And of all the things to call him out for, Sandman, with its cast-of-hundreds... seriously? American Gods had a bit of a man fixation, but Sandman?

... and even then, I wouldn't use the s-word without qualifiers. Gaiman writes too many interesting, complex characters to be slapped down with that term.

[McJulie]

The only thing that really annoyed me about the recent Beowulf film was how gobsmackingly more sexist it managed to be than the C6th-C10th poem it is purportedly based on.

This is something I have also noticed about modern film versions of Biblical epics -- they eliminate the cool female characters and disempower the ones they don't eliminate.

One of the most ridiculous manifestations of "Good Old Days" thinking is the In-our-glorious-past-we-were-kings-and-queens claim that some African-Americans have made.

I have always thought that claim was referring to the greatness of past African civilizations -- "we" in this case not referring to each and every person, but to a shared cultural history. Sort of the way I might point at the Saturn 5 rocket currently mothballed in Louisiana and say "we used to walk on the moon!" I know very well that I, personally, had nothing to do with the moon landing. When I say "we" I mean Americans, or humans in general.

Why does gender -- issues of appropriately masculine or feminine behavior -- seem so central to Evangelical belief...fundamentalist Jews & Muslims seem just as riveted to gender norms as the touchstone of their religions.
Maybe it has something to do with the desert origins of all three religions.

You might be over-thinking this. I don't think social oppression has a single-point historical origin. You might ask, "when people are feeling oppressive, why are gender norms one of the things they get oppressive about?" But I think the answer there lies in human psychology, rather than history.

[McJulie]

Also,Froborr: huh?

Would you like a list of trustworthy female characters in Sandman? Because it's a pretty long list, starting with Death...

[Jon]

Yeah, calling Gaiman sexist seems kind of out of left field to me (kind of really out of left field). Hmm, it is Thursday...could it be we have our flamewar topic?

[lonespark]

One of the most ridiculous manifestations of "Good Old Days" thinking is the In-our-glorious-past-we-were-kings-and-queens claim that some African-Americans have made.
McJulie sez:
I have always thought that claim was referring to the greatness of past African civilizations -- "we" in this case not referring to each and every person, but to a shared cultural history. Sort of the way I might point at the Saturn 5 rocket currently mothballed in Louisiana and say "we used to walk on the moon!" I know very well that I, personally, had nothing to do with the moon landing. When I say "we" I mean Americans, or humans in general.

This is certainly how it has been presented, when I have come across that kind of building-up, reclaiming of history type argument, in the context of any indigenous culture. I think it is immensely important to remind people who have been opressed for centuries, who now struggle every day against the effects of that oppression, whether the dominant culture and its priveleged groups acknowlege that or not, that there is a rich history of achievement in their heritage. It's important to do that (and present it to everyone, especially the children of privelege), not only because it provides a contrast the oppressive recent past or present, but also because it contrasts, contradicts, and shows the glaring menacity of, the revisionist "truth" passed off for centuries as history.

[hapax]

I think it is immensely important to remind people who have been opressed for centuries ... that there is a rich history of achievement in their heritage.

And I think that it is immensely important not to LIE to people in order to bolster their "self-esteem." Of course there is an immensely rich history in African civilizations (and southeast Asian civilizations, and Mesoamerican civilizations, etc. etc.) that is too little known.

But. Cleopatra was NOT African. The Pyramids were NOT African. Not ever Native American was an "Indian Princess." Jesus did not crib from the Upanisads. And so forth.

Teaching these things to people (and yes, I have seen all of these, and worse) taught in public schools is as bad as teaching soi-disant Creation Science. All it does is assure people that the are so inherently worthy that we have to make stuff up for them to feel good about.

(and how's all THAT for Thursday Flame War -bait?)

[lonespark]

And I think that it is immensely important not to LIE to people in order to bolster their "self-esteem." Of course there is an immensely rich history in African civilizations (and southeast Asian civilizations, and Mesoamerican civilizations, etc. etc.) that is too little known.

But. Cleopatra was NOT African. The Pyramids were NOT African. Not ever Native American was an "Indian Princess." Jesus did not crib from the Upanisads. And so forth.

Well, yeah. I think history should be based on facts, and if we later find our facts to be wrong, we should re-examine our understanding of history. But I guess I don't see lies that build self-esteem as worse than lies designed to destroy it. And telling a lot of "truth" but leaving out the truth about certain groups who aren't considered as important to American culture isn't lying...but it's still very wrong.

[lonespark]

So...pyramids.
Can someone explain to me how Egypt is not located in Africa? Is Nubia?
Use small words. I'm a scientist.

[hapax]

Can someone explain to me how Egypt is not located in Africa?

My apologies. I was using shorthand to refer to a factoid oft-repeat during "African American month".

Geographically, yes, Egypt is located on the African continent.

Culturally, ethnically, biologically, the ancient Egyptian civilization who built the pyramids was only tangentially related to the sub-Saharan African civilizations from whom most African-Americans are descended.

[Mark Z.]

The Pyramids were NOT African.

They're in Africa, last I checked.

[Froborr]

Somebody who knows such things, is Ancient Egyptian a Semitic language?

As for whether they're biologically related, well, humans are all biologically near-identical. We have an incredibly low genetic diversity, which is part of the reason we get so many epidemics. Compare, say, a Shih Tzu to a wolf to see what a species with high genetic diversity looks like.

[hapax]

humans are all biologically near-identical

*sigh*

Yes. Of course.

But there are certain genetic markers that correspond very well with certain cultural/ethnic/geographic groups. Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell Trait, for example are very well known.

The point is, to tell African-American students (as is done currently) "Be proud of your African heritage, because your ancestors built the Pyramids! " it is a LIE. A historically and scientifically demonstrable lie. A pointless lie.

[lonespark]

Well, I just...
Nubian people would be called black in this country. It's one thing to say, "your ancestors built the pyramids, yes you Billy, your great great great great great grandad was a Pharoah," and quite another to say, "The continent your ancestors left behind had a number of powerful, advanced civilizations that achieved many things, including blah and blah and blah and blah and also building the pyramids." I definitely agree that the history of Sub-Saharan Africa is never emphasized enough. But it really ties in with the stupidity of "Let's talk about all the achievments of black people throughout history for a single month."

Kids have already heard of the pyramids in ancient history classes. It's the only remotely African thing that usually gets covered in those classes. So putting it in that context is reclaiming something from generic Western (=white) society. No, Cleopatra wasn't black, but there were black rulers of Egypt.

Perhaps the lack of history of sub-saharan, and especially Western Africa is related to the lack of well-funded museums, etc. able to sponsor research? At least in some countries. When I was actually in Cameroon I had the opportunity to learn some real nifty history going back at least 500 years. I doubt such stuff is on the internet as much as we might hope.

is Ancient Egyptian a Semitic language?

According to Wikipedia, it is an "Afro-Asiatic" language, related to Semitic languages.

[hapax]

We don't teach Genesis in science class, lonespark, even though "kids have already heard of it."

Confusing geographical distinctions with cultural ones doesn't make any more sense. Why deliberately reinforce the error in our public school curricula for what is, in essence, pure propoganda?

[lonespark]

I'm not supporting the untrue propaganda version. I'm explaining how it could be included as a familiar touchstone, along with a bunch of other history of African civilizations. And you still haven't convinced me that kind of propaganda is worse than the other. (It might be, because of the perverted good intentions. But it might not.)

I gotta hand it to you, you cook up a tasty flamewar.

Input from actual black/african-american/POC/term of choice persons, or persons who have experience with the type of curriculum hapax is describing, would be very welcome.
My experience with history class was that non-white people basically DID NOT EXIST. They were only included when they had to be; a brief mention of the Iroquois Compact in Colonial History, the absolutely required bits in the Civil War...and some of the facts presented were demonstrably wrong. In World History, there were several chapters on African and Asian history in the textbook. The teacher skipped them.

[Salamanda]

Re: "The Good Old Days", I humbly submit a conversation between my grandma and my dad.

*****

Grandma: Well, nobody wants to get married anymore, except those gays and lesbians...
Dad: Hmm... Do you have something to substantiate that claim? Some sort of statistic, or report...?
Grandma: Oh, your father saw something on ESPN. About the lesbians.
Dad: Ahh. It's always them lesbians on ESPN, wanting to get married.

((A deep, fretful silence from Grandma. Dad tries in vain to contain his chortling.))

Grandma: I just miss the good old days, you know? When right was right and wrong was wrong. Everything was either black or white, there wasn't any...gray matter in between.
Dad: Well, that's exactly the problem, Mom, there wasn't any gray matter...
*******

[lonespark]

Salamanda's family FTW!

[twig]

Ah, history class. Studying WWII twice over four years because it was safe and we were 'the good guys'.

Because you can't teach WWI and then expect anyone to ever believe their government ever again.

[Froborr]

hapax: My point was that we don't parse people biologically, we parse them cosmetically and culturally. No, it's unlikely that most African-Americans had ancestors who built pyramids, but it's equally unlikely that most white students had ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War. Or, for that matter, that most modern Egyptians had ancestors that built pyramids.

I would say it's fairly likely that there's at least one African-American who had an Ancient Egyptian ancestor, and therefore it is true that the set of all ancestors of African-Americans includes Egyptians. Thus, it is as true for an African-American to say "Our ancestors built the pyramids" (but it must be "our ancestors", not "my ancestors", unless the African-American in question is actually descended from at least one Ancient Egyptian) as it is for a white to say "Our ancestors created the Bill of Rights."

It would be better, of course, if students learned something about African history *other* than Egypt. I'm not going to argue with that.

[Froborr]

Because you can't teach WWI and then expect anyone to ever believe their government ever again.

Which is a weird thing for them to be concerned about, when you think about it, because paranoia about the government is one of the few still-practiced American traditions that predates the twentieth century.

Well, the Nubians after being bullied by the Egyptians, eventually took over Egypt and ruled them for a while (25th Dynasty, lasting until the the newest Known World superpower on the block came to get Egypt in turn, this time the Assyrians, who replaced them with Libian satraps) incorporating and adopting a lot of their culture and taking it home in the process, see also Macedonia & Athens, Rome & Greece) - does that count?

Personally, "Our ancestors dominated the Pharoahs and ruled their country" sounds a bit cooler than "Our ancestors *were* the Pharoahs," but maybe that's just me.

But then, there's also that little niggling historical problem of foreign intermarriage - categorically denying that the Egyptians/Pharoahs were "African" (using "African" to mean something other than "people whose ancestors been living in Africa for thousands of years") when, in fact, many of the royal wives were from neighboring countries on all sides. (Not to mention what happens with international trade on less exalted levels...)

[bellatrys]

Pharaonic history mini-infodump was me. Preview on Typepad sucks just as bad as everything Six Apart has touched.

[Raj]

Take a look at this article:

http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

I think it is fairly representative of the current state of knowledge about the ethnic makeup of early Egypt. The article seems to indicate that while it would be wrong to characterize early Egypt as a "black civilization", black Africans were certainly part of it. The article also states that the cultural roots of Egyptian civilization were African.

One very important point this article makes - and I'm really glad it does - is that racial classification is highly subjective.

btw, hapax is right about Cleopatra: she not only wasn't African, she wasn't really Egyptian either. She was the last ruler of the Greek Ptolemaic Dynasty that took over Egypt after the death of the childless and heirless Alexander the Great.

Oh, one more thing: we are all ultimately of African descent.

[lonespark]

This is such an awesome flame tangent.
I don't think we disagree that making stuff up isn't the way to promote cultural pride, multicultural understanding, historical literacy, etc. But I think Froborr's Revolution point is really spot on. I have one single ancestor, a random Welsh guy, who was involved in some way in the Revolution. I don't identify very much with early American history. I know I'm part of the immigrant story of the 19th century, like a ton of the white people who share varying degrees of privilege. But on the whole, I think American popular culture encourages every white-looking American kid to identify with every supposedly heroic thing in American history, to feel entitled to claim that cultural heritage and defend it against the "wrong sort of people."

I think that's even true in the ancient world, too. Roman history isn't my history. My people were the scary pagan barbarians who sacked the place. But I am nontheless socialized to identify with it to some degree by the way the history of civilizations is taught.

[Dan S.]

Actually, my ancestors built the pyramids (assuming the whole Exodus narrative is in some sense historically accurate even though heavily mythologized, which is fairly questionable). Just not willingly.

"As an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith."

Why did they even have to go there? They could have just said 'and all other Americans,' whatever their beliefs', or whatever, rather than pulling out the whole 'nah-nah, atheism is too a faith!' silliness . . .

[twig]

paranoia about the government is one of the few still-practiced American traditions that predates the twentieth century.

I think the clusterfuck of WWI kind of expands past paranoia over the government to encapsulate disdain for all forms of authority, including religious, societal. Pretty much everything.

Hence dadaism. Which is probably not something people want their teenagers being taught when they're supposed to go out and be productive cogs.

[Jeff]

Amanda at Pandagon (who is strongly atheist) thinks that sexism is intrinsically irrational and so it *must* get support from religion, because it's not going to get it anywhere else.

Seeing how **all** groups, no matter how religious, divide people up into US and THEM, and sexism is merely one form of that division, I think this is demonstrably false. (It also shows why it was an extremely stupid move for Edwards' staff to approach her about blogging for their site. Hadn't they read **anything** she'd written???)

=======================

the notion of very specific and tightly controlled gender roles developed in the context of the rise of agriculture

From everything I know about still-extant hunter-gaththerer tribes, that, again, is patently false. Or so it seems to me.

- - - - - - -

And since all of my past lives during that time seem to have been lived as a series of sea slugs

That was you? Wow, what a coincidence meeting you again like this!

[lonespark]

(It also shows why it was an extremely stupid move for Edwards' staff to approach her about blogging for their site. Hadn't they read **anything** she'd written???)

Prior to them doing that, I had not read anything she'd written. And my life was better then. She's a definite case of "please, get off my side."

[Jeff]

For a real King, definitely black, there's the King of Mali, with his palace in Timbuktu, with two EEEEEEEEEEEEEEnormous elephants tusks comprising the doorway, and a squad of "Amazons" guarding it. There's photo evidence of it (but I can't find it just now).

[Froborr]

Every teenager should learn Dada! It is the duty of the young to shatter the stagnant order of the old.

[Keith]

As for the sexism, well, that's Neil Gaiman for you. -- froborr

Are you talking about the same Neil Gaiman who wrote about such varied and multifaceted female characters as Death, Delirium, Easter, Rose, San, Lady Iboshi, Bast and a dozen others I can't recall at the moment? Because if so, you need to go back and do a little more reading. Especially if Beowulf is your only exposure to his work (which by the way, he coauthored with Roger Avery, who may be more responsible for what went wrong with that film).

[Froborr]

I'm sorry, but am I the only person who remembers that whole tangent about Thessaly and magic being innately feminine? And the stuff about every woman being three women? Because, of course, mother, untouched maiden, and hideous crone are the only options.

[twig]

am I the only person who remembers that whole tangent about Thessaly and magic being innately feminine?

From what i remember, and I'd have to go to the bookstore to do a direct line reading, that particular brand of magic at that moment was 'women only,' which wasn't fair but - hey, them's the breaks. This is Thessaly we're talking about - I mean, I loved her character, but she wasn't exactly on the side of the angels.

And the maiden-mother-crone thing is a pretty standard descriptive trope. So yep, if you're going to throw shit at Gaiman, I'm kinda gonna need better 'proof' than that.

[Ursula L]

And the maiden-mother-crone thing is a pretty standard descriptive trope. So yep, if you're going to throw shit at Gaiman, I'm kinda gonna need better 'proof' than that.

Being "pretty standard" doesn't make the trope any less sexist - if anything, the standardness of the trope shows the pervasiveness of the sexist idea that women are defined by their reproductive status.

[hapax]

Roman history isn't my history.

Hey, I'm an equal opportunity contrarian. I threw an *awesome* tirade in my senior year Western Civilization class for starting with Egypt and Greece. Quoth the mini-hapax, "Heirs of Athens? We're the heirs of Athens only in the sense that the grandchildren of a mugger are the 'heirs' of his victims!"

Aw, the heck with it. I just read the news out of California, and I'm too amazed and happy to argue with anybody about anything.

Hence dadaism. Which is probably not something people want their teenagers being taught when they're supposed to go out and be productive cogs.

Obligatory book rec: Rob Thomas's awesome RATS SAW GOD.

[alfgifu]

@ Amaryllis - I know things have moved on a bit, but in case you're interested - the Beowulf poet muses on the instability of the sort of peace brought about by dynastic marriage several times, from several different perspectives. The bit that I had in mind runs:

Hildeburh had little cause
to credit the Jutes: son and brother,
she lost them both on the battlefield.
She, bereft and blameless, they
foredoomed, cut down and spear-gored. She
the woman in shock, waylaid by grief,
Hoc's daughter - how could she not
lament her fate when morning came
and the light broke on her murdered dears?

Seamus Heaney's translation. The 'Hoc's daughter' isn't an 'Ofhoc' moment - everyone in the poem is identified by their parent's names, especially Beowulf. Basically, her son and brother were on opposite sides because the peace her marriage established broke down. Both died and she returned to her own kingdom, leaving her husband.

@ twig - the thing that strikes me as sexism in the film is the unnecessary emphasis of the evil associated with Grendel's Mother's sexuality. In fact, the invention of that evil, as it certainly isn't there in the original poem. She's a more powerful antagonist in the film, but she's also objectified rather than characterized. She's become sovereignty and power in the land, symbolically speaking. In the process, the original poet's sympathy and identification with the character has been lost. Can you imagine a version of that film in which Grendel's Mother was physically powerful, neither particularly beautiful nor hideous, and was sympathetic enough to force the audience to realise what a thin line divides heroism from monstrosity? Instead we get female sexuality = predatory evil undermining the heroic masculine. I've not read much by Gaiman, but I'd heard good things about him and was really disappointed.

[lonespark]

re: Maiden/Mother/Crone
Are we really trying to argue that archetypes are inherently sexist? That just seems odd. There's sort of reductive and metaphorical. You can't usually get by with just one for a human being. But they're roles, ways of getting at the mysteries of identity and power for humans and other beings.

[Dash]

Raj: hapax is right about Cleopatra: she not only wasn't African, she wasn't really Egyptian either. She was the last ruler of the Greek Ptolemaic Dynasty that took over Egypt after the death of the childless and heirless Alexander the Great.

Well, actually, Cleopatra was Egyptian in the same way that I'm American. (Except, of course, that my family hasn't been running the country--so everybody stop throwing stuff, OK?) Her ancestors had lived in Egypt for several generations. She wasn't of local ethnicity, but she wouldn't have been the only Egyptian of whom that could be said; Egypt was a cultural crossroads of sorts. So Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian in the pretty much the same sense in which Queen Elizabeth isn't English.

And since all of my past lives during that time seem to have been lived as a series of sea slugs
Jeff: That was you? Wow, what a coincidence meeting you again like this!

Hey, how ya DOIN'? Did you ever find out who that jerk was who threw the fishing net? I was all set to move up to catfish, and the cussing alone set me back three incarnations.

[Jeff]

CAN I HAZ A FLAME-WARR PLZ?

A stripper (who was not exploited and loved her work) was late for church (faith? works? Protestant? Protestant-is-obsolete?) and arrived wearing her working clothes. She was stopped from entering and was told by the deacon (ie, an Eeeeevil Member of the Patriarchy) that she couldn't enter.

"But, father" (see the use of hierarchy to diminish the woman?) she said, "I have a Divine Right!"

"And your left is pretty awesome, too" (beacause all men are entittled entitled to sex), he said, "but I can't let you in without a hat."

Discuss.

[Jeff]

Hey, how ya DOIN'? Did you ever find out who that jerk was who threw the fishing net? I was all set to move up to catfish, and the cussing alone set me back three incarnations.

I'm not sure, but I doubt it was pure happaxstance, if you take my meaning...

[lonespark]

Ok, here's my contribution to the flamewar:
All you Christians with European roots should stop worshipping that ALIEN DESERT GOD right damn NOW! And quit reading that book translated from those unholy languages! Get back in touch with your barbarian roots!

[Jeff]

Get back in touch with your barbarian roots!

Is that a reference to the WorldTree?

[Jeff]

BTW, I'll probably be off from Friday through Monday, with possible drive-bys. Be good in my absence, chillun.

[Froborr]

I'll raise you, Jeff:

The belief in salvation through faith is pure magical thinking. If salvation is wholly or even partially through faith, then what you think is true (faith) can alter what is or will be true (your afterlife destination) without having to pass through the medium of action first. In other words, it's saying "I don't have to do anything to get this particular thing I want, I just have to believe." It is, essentially, no different from clapping hard to bring Tinkerbell to life.

On a side note, I reject the idea that I actually need salvation. I have plenty of food, adequate shelter, people I love who love me back, creative outlets, entertainment, time to sit and think about things, and places to discuss my thoughts. There's nothing to save me from.

[Lauren]

In World History, there were several chapters on African and Asian history in the textbook. The teacher skipped them.
-lonespark

To lay blame where blame is due, it is entirely possible that the teacher was following a school-, district-, or state-wide lesson plan that didn't leave any room for topics not on the list. Don't kill the messenger.

[Cowboy Diva]

who was that masked man?

[lonespark]

To lay blame where blame is due, it is entirely possible that the teacher was following a school-, district-, or state-wide lesson plan that didn't leave any room for topics not on the list. Don't kill the messenger.

Believe me, he was not. I can appreciate the need for a school-wide lesson plan that prevented him from doing that, however.

[hapax]

The belief in salvation through faith is pure magical thinking. If salvation is wholly or even partially through faith, then what you think is true (faith) can alter what is or will be true (your afterlife destination) without having to pass through the medium of action first.

Nonsense. Your entire argument depends upon the assumption that "salvation" / "afterlife" is a physical phenomenon or location.

If the Gospel message can be accurately translated as "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" only mental states (or intrusive surgery) can effect it.

I doubt it was pure happaxstance

pish tosh. I'd never use a drift net when I could use a nice pointy hook.

Or explosives.