Recently in Religion Category

Hanaa Rifaey doesn't sleep much. I'll let her explain why. But the next time you find yourself pissed at another policy done wrong, know that Hanaa is on it. And you can be, too. Even if it's a small step, it'll add up.

Here's Hanaa...

Yeah, charming indeed.

Thanks to Angi for the link.

Last week, the Vatican said that is appropriately following Christian tradition by excluding females from the priesthood, and issued a new warning that women who participate in ordinations will be excommunicated. Lovely.

Aisha Taylor, executive director of the Women's Ordination Conference, had this to say about the Vatican's statement:

The Women's Ordination Conference is outraged by yesterday's Vatican decree, which reminds Catholic women once again of the animosity they face from the hierarchy, despite being the backbone of most Catholic parishes throughout the world.

Out of fear of the growing numbers of ordained women and the overwhelming support they are receiving, the Vatican is trying to preserve what little power they have left by attempting to extinguish the widespread call for women's equality in the church. It will not work. In the face of one closed door after another, Catholic women will continue to make a way when there is none.

We reject the notion of excommunication. In our efforts to ordain women into an inclusive and accountable Roman Catholic Church, we see it as contrary to the gospel itself to excommunicate people who are doing good works and responding to injustice and the needs of their communities. While the hierarchy prattles on about excommunication, Catholic women are working for justice and making a positive difference in the world.

Snap!

The New York Times has caught on to the daddy-knows-best-for-your-hymen horror shows that are purity balls.

The first two hours of the gala passed like any somewhat awkward night out with parents, the men doing nearly all the talking and the girls struggling to cut their chicken.

But after dessert, the 63 men stood and read aloud a covenant “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.�

The gesture signaled that the fathers would guard their daughters from what evangelicals consider a profoundly corrosive “hook-up culture.� The evening, which alternated between homemade Christian rituals and giddy dancing, was a joyous public affirmation of the girls’ sexual abstinence until they wed.

Good times! I guess if your dad is going to be pledging ownership over your body, you might as well get some "giddy dancing" in! There's also a creepy slide show to boot.

Picture from The New York Times.

When you thought Western culture couldn't be more patronizing towards women from Muslim nations, their victimization and "powerlessness" might as well come with some infantalization to top it off:

Saudi Arabian women have fewer rights than infants in the West, a report released today claims.

The important thing about this condescension is that their lack of rights are compared to the West, specifically liberated Western babies. (Whatever that means.)

The (not-so) funny thing about the headline is that the report by Human Rights Watch doesn't seem to mention anything about Saudi women having fewer rights that Western children. Could they have covered the fact that some women have to gain permission from their sons to travel? Or that Saudi authorities treat adult women like legal minors? This is a blatant misrepresentation of research that addresses some serious issues.

At the same time, Zoheir al-Harithi, spokesman for Saudi's Human Rights Commission, says that the report didn't focus on productive efforts to improve the situation as well as confused tradition with state policy. "We agree with some points and we are working on that as a commission for the government, but we don't agree with the generalisation."

You can download the full report, Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia, here.

A reader who is a teacher in Malaysia sent us this video, and I thought it was really interesting. And refreshing. It's nice to hear different viewpoints about wearing hijab from women who actually are, you know, Muslim. (So often, we only hear from non-Muslim folks speaking on behalf of women about how oppressive it is, without listening to Muslim women's voices.) The only thing I'm unsure of is whether or not the women are actors or if this was more a documentary-style vid. Either way, I think it's pretty compelling.

Over at The Nation, Kathryn Joyce (the brilliant writer who broke the Quiverfull story) has an amazing article on "pro-family" conservatives who have started a movement on why Europe needs to create more white babies. For reals. It's a racism-xenophobia-sexism clusterfuck. (With some religious extremism thrown in for good measure.) So, yeah, a fun read!

Especially in sports, out of all things. Come on now, little ladies!

A Kansas Roman Catholic high school banned a female referee from officiating a boy's basketball game because as a woman, and shouldn't be put in an authority position over the boys. Yes, really.

The good thing is that Official Michelle Campbell has support behind this ridiculousness; her fellow male ref walked out with her in protest when the school told her to leave, and the Activities Association is considering banning the school itself from playing in games.

The school is operated under the Society of St. Pius X, which has the following under their "FAQs":

'Feminism refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path at the end of which the suicide of thought and the death of womanhood is inevitable,' Father Leo Boyle answered.

On whether a wife should be submissive to her husband: 'Husbands will consequently take responsibility and leadership, even when they feel inadequate, and wives will take delight in denying their own will and obeying their husbands,' Father Peter R. Scott answered.

Hmmm...suicide of thoughts or denying of will - I vote for deviancy!

I was so moved by the New York Times profile of Turkish lawyer, Fatma Benli. At just 34-years-old, she is the leader of the fight for Muslim womens' right to wear their scarves in public places, especially at school. She told the Times:

I could tell you about domestic violence, about honor killings, about the parts of the criminal code that discriminate against women. But we can’t move on to those issues. The head scarf is where we are stuck.

What do you get when you combine the "lazily sensual harem woman reclining on a couch" stereotype with the "cowed housewife bullied by her religion and the men in her life" stereotype? Veil fetish art. Zeynab at Muslimah Media Watch breaks it all down.

And in a follow-up post, Zeynab writes about the art of Makan Emadi, and how it deals with issues of concealment and exposure of Muslim women's bodies. Is it a powerful critique of both Eastern and Western sexism? Or is it just perpetuating the worst Eastern and Western sexist stereotypes? She has some interesting thoughts.

Now this is what I call some activism:

A group of female protesters locked in a land dispute with the Greek Orthodox Church defied a 1,000-year-old ban and entered the all-male Mount Athos monastic sanctuary in northern Greece, a police official said Wednesday.

A police spokesman said on customary condition of anonymity that the small group of nearby villagers, including at least six women, climbed over a fence Tuesday and briefly entered the self-governing peninsula, where women are strictly forbidden.

Awesome. While the rally was concerning certain land claims, it's still no doubt a great statement. In the past, single female visitors were said to have entered the grounds disguised as men. But not today.

"Pope Benedict Says Pharmacists Have Right To Conscientiously Object To Fill Emergency Contraception"

B-dog is at it again! It's no huge surprise that our anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-woman and yes, even anti-rock Pope would also be anti-birth control.

Pope Benedict XVI assured pharmacists at the 25th International Congress of Catholic Pharmacists on Monday that they should object to filling prescriptions for emergency contraception, as well as give moral "advice" to those seeking EC. You know, because it's their business and all.

but, I have always thought nuns were really cool, to be honest. I mean something appeals to me about a simple life away from the consumer marketing of mainstream culture and the woes of relationships with men. But the whole, anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-gay, dogmatism kinda makes it a bad choice for anything other than sociological study on how religions make some people act crazy.

But this story does stick out to me, because it transcends some of the awful, bad, terrible communications strategy/PR of the Catholic church and gives us a sense of something real.

The real geekery of a nun.

Her cell phone has a custom ring tone. She frequents the Internet's most popular social networking sites. She gets jittery when she can't check her e-mail or post on her blog. She communicates with her family mostly by AOL instant messenger. And she's a 50-year-old nun.

Sister Anne Flanagan has been a Daughter of St. Paul for almost 30 years, and lives with five other nuns in a convent upstairs from a Catholic bookstore near Chicago's Magnificent Mile. She teaches Bible study classes, edits Catholic books and magazines and roams the Internet looking for cool technology, although, she wryly notes, "a vow of poverty tends to limit one's access."

A nun excited about Wired. C'mon, that is pretty cute. The interview is worth a read, she talks about online prayer and mobilizing environmentalism through religion.

Via.

O'Reilly appeared on Good Morning America yesterday to talk about his new book on the youth of today. I am scared that O'Reilly actually was near young people. But I remember teachers like him, the ones that did it to really set these kids straight. They sucked.

But now he has a book out about young people and how to control them and how they act in school. I wouldn't normally pay attention this, but this got me. O'Reilly claims that wearing a burqa/hijab/veil, is an imposition of religion onto OTHER people. Huh?

O'Reilly and host Diane Sawyer are in agreement that today's youth are unacceptably dressed. Indicators of this include the flaunting of low-hanging pants and burqas. Burqas, O'Reilly says, are an imposition of one's religion on others. He alludes to such an expression of religion as a path to "chaos in the classroom" and an acceptable loss at the discretion of school administration.

Oh, I see, low hanging pants AND burqas. So too much exposure, bad-too little exposure, bad. No wonder kids are so confused and angry these days. All they get are mixed messages. And what do these two fashion choices have in common? It is probably young brown kids wearing them, so of course they shouldn't be wearing them to school. My god, how did they even let them IN the school?

And you have to love the hypocrisy. First he chides the school district for firing a teacher to have the students pray and then demands that wearing a burqa in school creates chaos. Obviously for him, it is only an imposition of religion if it is not one that he adheres to.

(Oh and he hates on Colbert, so boo to him. AND, what is up with Diane Sawyer all, "thanks for saying I am pretty?" Barf.)

via Raw Story.

Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania had prevention messages being aired for just two days on WDUQ 90.5 FM, the flagship NPR affiliate in Pittsburgh, before they pulled the plug on the underwriting messages because it was "not aligned with" the "Catholic identity" of the station's license holder, Duquesne University.

If you live in Pennsylvania and thing this is a load of crap like we do, then take action.

Here's some good news to get you revved up for the weekend.

Roman Catholic bishops in Connecticut have agreed to let hospital personnel give emergency contraception to all rape victims, reversing their decision days before a new state law requires it.

Okay, so they were forced to comply. Whatevs. At least women in Connecticut can rest a little easier. But here's an interesting tidbit. Apparently, state church officials wanted to mandate an ovulation test for women seeking emergency contraception before they would dispense it. The idea being if a woman was ovulating there was a better chance of conception having taken place--and then they wouldn't give her EC.

And people have the nerve to argue that anti-choice shit isn't about controlling women's bodies?

So in response to the woman in Nebraska who is rightfully suing for the ban of the word "rape" at a rape trial, State Senator Ernie Chambers has said that he is suing god to show how frivolous lawsuits can be.

Chambers lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in Douglas County Court, seeks a permanent injunction ordering God to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats.

The lawsuit admits God goes by all sorts of alias, names, titles and designations and it also recognizes the fact that the defendant is “Omnipresent�.

In the lawsuit Chambers says he’s tried to contact God numerous times, “Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon Defendant (“Come out, come out, wherever you are�) has been unable to do so.�

The suit also requests that the court given the “peculiar circumstances� of this case waive personal service. It says being Omniscient, the plaintiff assumes God will have actual knowledge of the action.

The lawsuit accuses God “of making and continuing to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent.�

It says God has caused, “fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like.�

The suit also says God has caused, “calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction.�

Chambers also says God “has manifested neither compassion nor remorse, proclaiming that Defendant “will laugh� when calamity comes.

Chambers asks for the court to grant him a summary judgment. He says as an alternative, he wants the judge to set a date for a hearing as “expeditiously� as possible and enter a permanent injunction enjoining God from engaging in the types of deleterious actions and the making of terroristic threats described in the lawsuit.

via AP.

I pasted the whole thing, because it is just so weird. It is also extremely disappointing as Ernie Chambers is a well known civil rights activist and according to an interview in Mother Jones last year, "he’s been named the “angriest black man in Nebraska,� the “defender of the downtrodden,� and the “maverick of Omaha.� And it's hard to deny that Chambers lives up to such colorful titles." How can someone with such a reputation think in anyway that banning the word "rape" at a rape trial is justified, let alone something to parody?

That really is disappointing. Thoughts?

Thanks to Azliza for the link.

I've gotten a TON of emails about this crazy-creepy website, Marry Our Daughter. And while the site has been outed as a hoax site, I think it's worth mentioning. Because there's something severely fucked up about the idea that women are in such a bad place that a site like this seemed like it could be real.

After all, with things like purity balls and abstinence-only education teaching young women that their only value is as future wives--something like this site doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Luckily, the actual purpose of Marry Our Daughter is to bring attention to a somewhat related issue:

Contacted through MarryOurDaughter this morning, [site creator John] Ordover quickly conceded the page was a parody aimed at drawing attention to inconsistencies in state marriage laws. States consider it a crime for adults to have sex with minors, but they allow kids as young as 12 to get married with parental and sometime judicial permission.

Ordover is also a co-creator of the super controversial "Technical Virgin" website that Melanie Martinez was fired over.

So I'm actually kind of pleased about this--assuming that the issue gets some attention. In fact, I wrote about this in my book (shameless plug alert). People are up in arms about teenagers (well, teenage girls) having sex, but only if they're not married. Best example ever: the 13-year old in Nebraska whose parents married her off to the 21 year-old man who got her pregnant. You know, so she'd still be "pure."

UPDATE: Amanda has more. And it's disturbing.

A pastor in Australia who recently pled guilty to raping two of his teenage daughters said he only did it in order to teach them how to be good wives:

The man told the court the sex was not about fulfilling his desires but about teaching his daughters how to behave for their husbands when they eventually married, as dictated in scripture.

Just a thought--how far off is this from Purity Balls?

After all, it's all about fathers owning their daughters' sexuality and preparing them to be "good wives." And while incest isn't explicit in the purity ball madness, it sure is implied. Thoughts?

(via Spare Room, thanks to Lindsay for the link.)

What if your wife, even after graduating the prestigious homemaking course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a degree in ladylike submission, still won't behave? Uber-conservative Christian patriarchs everywhere now have a solution!

Give her a good spanking. For how to incorporate this into your marriage, see the "Christian Domestic Discipline" site. Unlike the Baptists for Brownback campaign Jen wrote about awhile ago, this site appears to be legit. Not a parody.

A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is one that is set up according to Biblical standards; that is, the husband is the authority in the household. The wife is submissive to her husband as is fit in the Lord and her husband loves her as himself. He has the ultimate authority in his household, but it is tempered with the knowledge that he must answer to God for his actions and decisions. He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely. CDD is so much more than just spanking. It is the husband loving the wife enough to guide and teach her, and the wife loving the husband enough to follow his leadership. A Christian marriage embodies true romance and a Christian man a true hero.

This is billed as completely consensual, with it made clear that "the husband has authority to spank the wife. The wife does not have authority to spank her husband." The site was created by wife-spankers who were sick of stumbling upon porn when they searched for other like-minded folks online. Lest you become confused that the CDD site is a BDSM site with a Christian spin, they're sure to reiterate that this is about adhering to Biblical gender roles -- not about sexual pleasure. Unless you get off on asserting your patriarchy by slapping your property wife. Not an unheard-of phenomenon, as the site acknowledges:

Though we recognize by its very nature this subject can be erotic, we will keep this website as clean and wholesome as possible. However, we will not seek to deny the erotic nature of some CDD marriages as we believe it is a natural consequence of following God's plan. After all, He created eroticism to be enjoyed inside a Christian marriage.

But what if sometimes your wife doesn't want to be spanked? Well, let's not use an inconvenient phrase like "domestic violence" or "spousal abuse." Nah, "non-consensual CDD" would be more appropriate, really. And the site basically says that it's a man's god-given right to hit his wife, even if those pesky laws against domestic violence get in the way.

Non-consensual CDD:

Though we believe the Bible gives a husband the authority to use spanking as one tool in enforcing his authority in the home with or without his wife's permission, in today's world we recognize the legality that mandates that all CDD must be consensual. Therefore we will do not condone nonconsensual CDD as a rule.

How progressive of them!

Lynn at Broadsheet delved into the blogs linked on the site, which are just so sad. One blogger, a woman named Debbie, has decided having her husband hit her is a cheap and effective weight-loss strategy. She recounts being beaten for accidentally leaving the stove burner on, and writes, "I felt my stomach drop when I saw my husband bring out a heavy belt." She continues,

I am not abused nor capable of being abused. I imagine that if one of you raging feminist find yourself beaten by a man you had better hope Leah or I (or someone of like mind) comes along to beat the stuffing out of him for you. I know I'm capable and from reading I sort of believe Leah is as well. My submission is quite voluntary.

I'm not saying all wife-spanking is analogous to domestic abuse. The blogs and the site make clear that this is a lifestyle chosen (how freely chosen is another question...) by women themselves. One writes on the site, "We practice CDD-lite in our home as it is a concept that I have brought to my husband and one that he is still getting comfortable with."

Of course, that's less disturbing than "non-consensual CDD," but still thoroughly depressing. As Lynn writes, "violence at home -- 'consensual' or otherwise -- is by no means unique to these particular fundamentalists; abusers and victims can find plenty of justification for their actions without distorting Scripture." And I agree with her that seeing it put in such plain terms on this site and in these blogs is really, really troubling.

On a much, much lighter note, the site also features a store... which sells crotchless pantaloons. (Picture below the fold.)

"Because of my degree in homemaking, I can read this recipe book!"

The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is offering a new and exciting academic program: homemaking!

Southwestern Baptist, one of the nation's largest Southern Baptist seminaries, is introducing a new academic program in homemaking as part of an effort to establish what its president calls biblical family and gender roles.

It will offer a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration in homemaking. The program is only open to women.

Of course it is. Coursework for the program includes nutrition and meal preparation, textile design and classes on "the value of a child" and the "biblical model for the home and family."

Seminary President Paige Patterson says "We are moving against the tide in order to establish family and gender roles as described in God's word for the home and the family...If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed."

I always thought nations were destroyed by war, famine or disease. Little did I know it was actually women taking classes in anything other than ironing that determines the demise of a country.

By the way, Patterson is known in Southern Baptist circles for issuing a statement saying that women shouldn't be pastors and that they should "graciously submit" to their husbands. (How one "graciously submits" is another question. Would I smile and thank him for the great honor of doing his laundry?)

Earlier this year, a former professor filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the school and Patterson--she says she was fired from her tenure-track position because she was a woman. Perhaps she didn't graciously submit. Silly girl. In fact, Patterson's wife is the only woman faculty member in Southwestern's theology school. Shocking.

Though, of course, this isn't just about Patterson. Plenty of folks at the school are behind the move to instill traditional gender roles in their students. Terri Stovall, dean of women's programs at Southwestern, said "Whether a woman works outside or strictly in the home, her first priority is her family and home...We just really want to step up and provide some of these skills." Yeah, way to step up. I'm sure women graduates will look back on their years at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and be ever-so-grateful that they spent half of their college education learning how to knit booties.

Thanks to Marquel for the link!

Nope, this isn't about a revival of the early 90s Whoopie Goldberg hit movie, this is about what Bust Magazine is reporting this month is a new trend of young, feminist minded women choosing to become nuns.

Bust reports that young women are being drawn into the nun's life, something that even in Whoopie's movie is characterized by sheltered little old ladies with grey hair. At a time when criticisms against the Catholic church are at a high, with recent priest sexual abuse scandals and harsh reactions to the archaic stance the Vatican is taking against modern day issues like homosexuality and birth control, it's surprising to think that young women may be choosing to become part of this hierarchy.

The article points to the internet as evidence of the rising visibility of nuns, and gives it at least partial credit for recruitment into the life as well. They mention a number of nun-authored blogs which deal directly with many of the difficult issues of convent life--celibacy, for example. And, just in case you're curious, priests are blogging too.

The women interviewed for the Bust piece use the language of feminism--and frame their decisions to enter the convent within the language of choice:

Society tells women that you have to get married. But I'm open to the possibility of falling in love with a religious community or a man.

Further explaining the feminist context of these convents:

...Women's gifts are encouraged--whether it be to play music, teach, learn languages, or write. Convents demonstrate the positive side of a gender-segregated education. Women's religious life is a very strong feminist social construct.

Like Matt, I don't get the joke.

...at least in the minds of most people who are actually getting married. Amanda has a great post up about how fewer and fewer couples see marriage and babies as inextricable.

Of course, this has got to be deeply upsetting to fundamentalist Catholics. I spent the past weekend at a very traditional Catholic wedding in my hometown Iowa. Now, I've definitely been to Catholic weddings before, but not since I was a kid. And what really stood out to me about hearing the Catholic vows this time around is how procreation-focused they are. The Church makes the couple swear that they want to have lotsa babies. It's a promise right up there with "''til death do us part." The priest asks,

Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?

This is, it turns out, part of the underpinning of the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception. Want to get married but don't want to become a babymaking machine? Well, tough, you're in violation of your wedding vows.

I find the whole thing pretty appalling. And speaking of, check out the (two-piece! I shit you not) bridesmaid's dress I was sporting this weekend... (Below the fold.)

Apparently a senior church of England bishop has made an official announcement that a onslaught of floods which has been causing damage across the UK isn't a an overabundance of precipitation resulting in shitty weather, but actually the wrath of the almighty smiting the nation for being too gay-friendly. I should have known!

As the Nerve headline says, "What If Gay Sex Could Actually Cause it to 'Rain Men'?"

A 25-foot high inflatable blue elephant, of course!

This "elephant in the pew" was presented by a Christian campaign that aims to confront the "porn problem" that exists within Christian churches and homes. The National Porn Sunday Elephant (yes, there is a National Porn Sunday and it's October 7th) is going on a 20-city tour to spread the word about how pornograhy corrupts families. Because, um, that's what elephants do?

Brazilian supermodel Gisele speaks out against the Catholic church and their stance on premarital sex, contraception and abortion. I am not really into the supermodel thing--like wow who cares, feminists say this shit all the time--but I guess we can't deny the influence super models have on young women world-wide.

Bundchen tells the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper, "Today no one is a virgin when they get married ... show me someone who's a virgin."

Referring to pregnant women, Bundchen says they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have the child.

She says, "If she thinks she doesn't have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?"

"It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives - you only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive."

"How is it possible to not want people to use condoms and also not have abortions? It's impossible, I'm sorry."

Brazil is very much influenced by the Catholic church and women can only get abortions if it is a risk to their health or they are raped (which is more than Brownbeck would allow, eek). I only hope more and more celebrities speak out, because maybe people will listen to them more or something. I don't know.

via WENN.

An organist for a Catholic church was fired for selling sex toys, saying that her side job was not "consistent with Church teachings."

Linette Servais, 50, played the organ and sung with the choir for 35 years. Much of her work as choir director and organist was done without pay. When her parish priest asked to meet with her, she thought it was to say thank you.

Instead, she was told to quit her sales job with company known as Pure Romance or she would lose her position in the church.

Pure Romance in Loveland, Ohio, is a $60 million per year business that sells spa products and sex toys at homes parties attended by women. It has 15,000 consultants like Servais.

She said her decision was not hard: She began working with Pure Romance after a brain tumor and treatment left her sexually dysfunctional. The job allows her to help other women who have similar problems.

But who cares about brain tumor patients who have the audacity to want sexual pleasure?

Servais said that she "feel[s] that Pure Romance is my ministry." the good news is that many choir members have quit in support of her, and some gather at her home on Thursdays to sing hymns.

Speaking of sex toys, don't forget about this fantastic video on the sex toy ban in Texas that features Molly Ivins!

A perfume priding itself as “The World’s First Spiritual Perfume," apparently takes the scents from the Bible and puts them in a bottle of the oh-so-holy “Virtue.� Because spending the $80 per bottle will make you a true Christian woman!

Additionally, Kentucky has finally opened their $27 million Creation Museum, in which the story of the Bible can apparently be defended by science. Check out Salon's tour of the museum, where they found one room dedicated to condemning abortion and homosexuality. (Aw, a whole room dedicated to us 'lil ole heathens? You shouldn’t have!)

So if you had to, which one would you spend your money on? I would normally say I'd be interested in going to the museum but the pictures in the Salon article scare me a little.

Sweet.

A number of Evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic groups are brawling with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson for praising the Supreme Court's Federal Abortion Ban. Some are even accusing Dobson and other anti-choice leaders of building a "pro-life industry" of misleading information and "relentless fundraising."

Dobson has been declaring the ban a victory while other anti-choice groups are saying it's more of a disappointment, claiming it serves merely as a "manual" of late-term abortions and condones them "as long as you follow its guidelines." A group even released a letter in a full-page ad to Dobson saying that he's giving inaccurate information to other anti-choicers and should be called out for it. In response, Focus on the Family's Vice President Tom Minnery commented that they celebrated the ban "because we, and most pro-lifers, are sophisticated enough to know we're not going to win a total victory all at once. We're going to win piece by piece."

Oh, so you're the sophisticated pro-lifers, huh? Where does that leave the rest of y'all? You're just going to let them call you classless like that? Fight! Fight! Fight!

Between the fact that a quarter of a billion dollars has been raised towards the ban and Dobson's perpetual shmoozing with SCOTUS judges makes it apparent that the "true" pro-life agenda may not necessarily be Dobson's priority anymore (or never was, for that matter). And it's not like this is anything new for right-wing politics, but the difference now is that the anti-choice masses are catching on; some say it could be the biggest split in the anti-choice movement in over a decade. And we like this.

Health activists in sub-Saharan Africa are seeing that attempts at stopping FGM based on women's rights isn't working, so they are turning to the Quran, to find evidence that it is not a religious necessity.

Abdi, who speaks about female genital mutilation on behalf of the US-based Population Council, said invoking Islam penetrates years of cultural indoctrination.

"Women don't have to torture themselves.

Islam does not require them to do it," said Abdi, who underwent the procedure when she was 6 and was a college student by the time she realised it was not necessary from a religious viewpoint.

With age-old cultural roots, female genital mutilation is practised today in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt and other parts of the Arab world such as Yemen and Oman.

In the rest of the Islamic world - the Middle East, North Africa, southeast Asia - it's nearly non-existent.

I am sure part of the problem is that Muslim ideas and Western feminist ideas tend to run in opposition to one another. The feminist movement, as it is understood world-wide, is considered to be Western and white. It seems almost logical that local leaders would reject the terms of women's rights if they are based on a Western model of "women's liberation."

However, the health risks of FGM are real and cannot be ignored internationally. But it is important to listen to these activists on their own terms.

Late last year, the top cleric in Egypt - where the practice is pervasive and many believe it is required by Islam - spoke out against it, saying circumcision was not mentioned in the Quran, the Muslim holy book, or in the Sunna, the sayings and deeds of Muhammad - the two main sources of Islamic practice.

"In Islam, circumcision is for men only," Mohammed Sayed Tantawi said.

"From a religious point of view, I don't find anything that says that circumcision is a must" for women.

Laws against female genital mutilation exist in many of the regions where it is practised, but poor enforcement and lack of publicity can hinder the laws, human rights groups and women activists say.

Feel free to list other info on this topic in comments.

via Namibian.

While I was trying to find a quote on Wikipedia (don't ask, I'm obsessive), I stumbled upon this page for Rt. Rev. Barbara C. Harris. She was the first woman ever ordained as a bishop in the United States Episcopal Church. And, she's been a close friend of my family for as long as I can remember. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good bio of her. They talk about her road to election as a bishop in 1989. I haven't seen her for a long time, but when I think about the women that inspire me, she's on the list. One of the things I love is that while I can't relate to her deeply held religious beliefs, she has (like I try to) always fought for the rights of women in her world. Sadly, of course, the Episcopal Church hasn't gotten past the fighting that occurred when she was ordained. In fact, things have gotten much worse.

I also found this great copy of a sermon she gave on the 25th anniversary of the first ordination of women in the priesthood in the Episcopal church. (Incidentally, the sermon was delivered at the church where I was baptized, which didn't turn out so well, but it's still a great place) Check it out, the whole thing is awesome.

Now I want to try to speak a little truth here tonight. And I am going to be brief and, as often accused, I am going to be blunt. I do, however, have to choose my words very carefully in that I not only tend to be quoted, I frequently tend to get misquoted. I don't mind the former, in context - it's the latter that ticks me off.

To begin with, last year's decennial gathering of apostolic eagles - which included its share of turkeys - the Lambeth Conference, brought a defining melding of these two questions.

Despite the development of a critical mass of ordained women, including eleven bishops, at Lambeth we were left wondering what had happened to the dream of a kinder, gentler church. The conference resolution concerning ordination of women and its odious amendment - authored by two women bishops in concert with some conservative male bishops - totally ignored any positive impact the church has experienced through ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate over the past 25 years. It was a stunning denigration of the more than 6000 women in Orders from Utah to Uganda, to say nothing of those who have yet to respond to God's call. Rather, having tasted blood with the much amended resolution on human sexuality, the princes of the church moved in for the kill on the people they really hold in low esteem - WOMEN.

What a gift it was to have someone like her in my life. She's just one of the many people from my childhood that lead me to the feminism. And now that I'm thinking about it I feel like I need to look her up for a talk.

P.S. Writing this without cursing was tough, but I figured I owe it to Barbara. Not that she would really mind. I remember the smoking, drinking and trips to Atlantic City.

Pope Benedict issued a warning to Catholic politicians, saying that they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they are pro-choice.

It was the first time that the Pope, speaking to reporters aboard the plane taking him on a trip to Brazil, dealt in depth with a controversial topic that has come up in many countries, including the United States, Mexico, and Italy.

The Pope's comment comes after Mexican Church leaders' threats to excommunicate legislators who voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

Reuters reports that Muslim women in France are beginning to have vaginal reconstructive surgery to reattach their hymen so that when they get married, their past sexual experiences will remain private.

While this is obviously upsetting, I fear the trend will be used as a means to push the xenophobic agenda that has been, to a large extent, controlling Muslim women's lives in Europe for quite some time now. Called now by some "the two 'V's' -- veils and virginity," I wouldn't be surprised if there is a proposed ban for the procedure. (They already banned headscarves from schools in 2004.) But what would that actually do? A serious backlash could occur for women who would be seeking the surgery; it could very well just oppress them more.

Am I saying hymenoplasty is a good thing for Muslim women? Not at all, but to prohibit women from doing something personal with their bodies to avoid potential shame due to their religion while women in our own Western culture willingly have been seeking hymenoplasties because "it's so hot" and want "designer vaginas" would just further exemplify how Muslim women are consistently victimized by Western cultures for entirely different purposes than "liberating them."

But who knows, maybe France won't be willing to give up their own designer vaginas.

According to sharia laws in some place men can take up to four wives. So what happens when a woman decided that she is going to take on four wives herself? They have to go into hiding because if caught they are either stoned to death or canned.

Kano's Hisbah board, which uses volunteers to enforce Islamic law, told the BBC that the women's marriage was "unacceptable".

The BBC's Bala Ibrahim in Kano says Aunty Maiduguri and her four "wives" are thought to have gone into hiding the day after they married.

All five women, who are believed to be film actresses in the local home-video industry, were born Muslims, otherwise they would not be covered by Sharia law.

Home-video industry? That sounds totally shady.

When men take more than one wife, that is some type of hyper-masculinized heterosexuality (even though in some way those women are married to each other, they are not given as many legitimate rights as men, but it is not your typical heteronormative relationship). But when women do it, they are constructed as run-away lesbians and have to go into hiding. I am scared for them.

via BBC.

Currently in Brazil women can only get abortions if there are complications to the pregnancy or if they were raped. Cultural relativism to the side, I am not OK with this. Brazil's abortion laws are dictated by a very stringent following of the Catholic church.

The new Minister of Health, Jose Gomes Temporao, feels that the debate should be moved from a religious and moral one, to one of public health.

Mr Temporao says that around 200,000 women are treated for complications following abortions every year, the vast majority of them believed to have taken place in illegal clinics involving a high degree of risk for the women.

An opinion poll released at the weekend suggests 65% of Brazilians are against changing the existing law.

Mr Temporao says that result is not surprising as he believes the question has always been debated in a superficial way.

He told the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo he wants Brazil to treat the discussion as a matter of public health.

Backlash from the church is expected, but at least he is talking.

via BBC.

Less than a month after a young girl was kicked out of a soccer game in Quebec because of her refusal to remove her hijab, the province has recently announced that Muslim women who are wearing niqabs, a form of veil that covers their face, will not be allowed to vote in today’s elections.

Quebec’s elections chief Marcel Blanchet originally allowed voters to wear their face covering if they signed a sworn statement and showed identification when at the polls, but reversed his decision on Friday, stating that it was "necessary to avoid disruptions� on election day.

These “disruptions� were among threatening calls and emails Blanchet had received leading him to get bodyguards, including some residents’ claims that they would show up at the polls with masks on in protest.

It’s just infuriating that at the first sign of opposition (and by a bunch of xenophobes, no less), Blanchet not only backs down but changes the language in the electoral laws to make the ruling permanent. Could it get much worse?

Zuzu at Feministe has more.

Whatevs, Bill. We were so on this before you were.