Two Stadiums Where Religion Made the World Worse

Within a few days of each other last week, on opposite sides of the world, on opposite ends of the wealth and privilege spectrums, the faithful filled two stadiums. In one, in Kismayo, Somalia, 1000 Muslim believers watched the stoning of a 13 year old girl—Aisha was her name--condemned for adultery because she dared to complain about being gang raped. In the other, in San Diego, California, thousands of Evangelicals sang and swayed and pledged their bodies and souls to the purpose of stripping gay men and women of equality under the law and specifically the right to marry. Like Aisha, those men and women have names. One of them is named David. Another Will. I know because I love them , as Aisha’s broken parents loved their daughter.

The horror of imagining a thirteen-year-old raped and stoned is so enormous that it is hard emotionally to put the two events in the same bucket. And yet we must, if we are to understand what is happening to our country and to our world. We must, because they belong there. Both events can be understood only in terms of a single human phenomenon: the worship of specific brutal words that were written in a brutal time and place. Those 1000 Muslims and thousands of Evangelicals are “People of the Book,” the ideological Sons and Daughters of Abraham, bound by a lineage of clay tablet and papyrus and vellum and paper to moral priorities of our Bronze Age ancestors.
These ancestors were sworn enemies of sex--outside of the relationship in which a man controlled and jealously guarded his females: wives, slaves, and daughters. He owned them all, and to violate one of them was to violate his property (“You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20.) He owned their offspring, and if he was vigilant enough he could be reasonably confident about whose DNA his females carried in their bellies. When he went to war, he raped or kept the women of his enemies, as a part of the plunder. (“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Numbers 13.)
The stoning, like the urgent need to bar gays from acceptance as full members of society comes straight out of the Books, chapter and verse. And though one seems more vile than the other, both reflect the widespread human willingness to deny to others the rights we want for ourselves: liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or even life. How quickly we turn brutish when we idolize the fears and angers of our ancestors or our own fear and anger –and thus give divine sanction to our darkest impulses. In the end, in California, over 30 million dollars were spent in an attempt to deny one of the world’s most basic human rights to young couples, and old lovers, and pairs of moms and dads with kids in school or highchairs. An equal amount was spent in defense of fairness. How many thirteen-year-old girls might have been saved—from malaria or starvation or even stoning-- if the American People of the Book could let Books be books and could freely turn their moral energy toward alleviating suffering instead of causing it.
Valerie Tarico
Seattle. November 3, 2008
www.wisdomcommons.org

9 comments:

zilch said...

Another great post, Valerie. Something Pat Condell said in this clip comes to mind: "Now, the past has plenty to teach us, but I don't think it should be allowed to detain us against our will".

BobCMU76 said...

I like that quote, zilch.

Arrested development.

I don't think anti-gay sentiment is in the Book. It's in our hearts, and corrupt hearts can find whatever they want in the Book.

I'm convinced, that the Levitical text saying "Don't lay with a man as with a woman" doesn't make much sense, as written. It implies some way to lie with a man that's not abominable. I think perhaps one ought not lay with a woman as with a man. It's all about the prostate.

I'm of agreement though that anachronistic woman-as-property teachings are rife in the Book, and ought be discarded. Can we discard them, without discarding the Book?

It's like the Roberts/Scalia court, who aren't so careful to preserve and extend the ideals upon which our National charters propel us, as to stregthen the anchor chains of anacronisisms which prevented their fulfillment from the start.

Valerie Tarico said...

I like that quote too, Zilch.

Hi Bob - I don't think we need to discard the Bible or our other sacred texts but we do need to stop worshiping them. We need to recognize them as the 3000 year struggle of our spiritual ancestors to understand what is Good and what is real and how to live in moral community with each other. We need to glean their wisdom and move beyond their moral and conceptual limitations. The nuggets of gold are there among the rubble, but putting gods' names on tribalism and superstition and bronze age justice is killing us.

Valerie Tarico said...

Zilch -
I just added your quote to the Wisdom Commons:) (see http://www.wisdomcommons.org/wisbits/2460 ).

BobCMU76 said...

Well said, Valerie.

Being a Christian, I tend to pull illustrations from the Bible. And one that fits here is where Jesus speaks of finding treasure buried in a field. And this leads one to revere the field.....

Did Jesus say if this was a good or a bad thing? I think a bad thing. Within the anachronistic, we find the eternal. Why is it such a chore to separate one from the other? Why, in fact, do we seem more focused on Grail than on the Blood?

Valerie Tarico said...

Hi All -
The Huffington Post just approved this article for their Living Section. If you might have time to comment there, that would be a gift as it makes them more likely to take future articles on similar subjects. Here's the permalink: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/two-stadiums-where-religi_b_140738.html

Valerie Tarico said...

Hi Bob -
My former roommate from Wheaton College (still a Christian, too) said something very similar.

BobCMU76 said...

Wheaton College was the one college to which I applied that turned me down. I went to Carnegie Mellon, thus BobCMU76.

I don't comment on Huff... too much a zinger crowd and too many of them.

BobCMU76 said...

I'm kind of piggy-backing here, valerie, with a few tangential laments from a liberal Christian...

One think you see it both stadiums is extreme passion. Homophobia and misogynism are abberant (and abhorent) sexual passions, but they certainly have the force and free trajectory of a primal, sexual drive.

I'm a Liberal Christian who doesn't much like the company of my own kind. I especially don't much care for the company of what I call sentimental Christians. I like passion. I like the passion of fundamentalists, though I often cringe at what they're about, and cringe more at those who latch onto that passion for sinister ends. I like the passion I'm finding here among atheists and some of their theist detractors. I see the passion here as even more primal... the passion to breathe free, the passion for liberty.

It's annual commitment time at my church, and the preacher spoke on Mark 5 (fisher of men) about going from being a "cultural" Christian to a "committed" Christian, with the loud sub text of financial extortion. This is a dying (Methodist) church where I think the average age is somewhere upward of 60. I'm 53, and well below the median age... about 1/4 are younger, 3/4 older than I.

What is a "committed" liberal Christian committed to? Smug liberal condescension? (Isn't Olbermann getting increasingly annoying? Hasn't Jim Wallis always been?). Institutional continuity? Propositional integrity?

All are better passions than primal sexual rage. But none inspire that level of commitment seen in those stadiums.