Jolinda Cary's Blog

Posted by Jolinda Cary

A Mormon fundamentalist in in court this week, asking that the Supreme Court overturn his conviction in a polygamy charge (nevermind that his second wife was just 16 years old, apparently its just the multiple marriages that are at issue here).

Rodney Holm's lawyer is arguing, in essence, that targeting polygamists is in essence religious discrimination, since the state does nothing to persecute those who cohabitate, practice serial monogamy, or have sexual relations outside of marriage.

Hmmm. It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court thinks about this one! I want to know if Holm's first wife was cited for practicing polygamy as well.

What do you think?

More:Understanding Polygamy

Discuss: Polygamy: Is it ok?

Related Article: Justices may see bigamy case

Posted by Jolinda Cary

"Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy-"

"Shhhh! I'm trying to read!"

This was the case in northern California this past week, when a Contra Costa County federal appeals court ruled that a library can ban a church groups from meeting on its premises.

Contrary to sensationalistic headlines, the ruling does not ban prayer in public libraries, but rather bans the use of library space for religious worship services. Lawyers for the church claim their client has been censored, and their First Amendment rights violated. The church group will appeal again, and plans on taking this case all the way to the top.

Like so often, however, there appears to be more to this story than immediately meets the eye. In this case, it turns out that the church in question was not simply interested in quietly praying behind closed library meeting room doors, but rather was interested in meeting at the church for the purposes of evangelism. This, in my mind, changes everything.

Public space should remain that - public space. A public sidewalk is for everyone, and so is the library. But a library serves a specific purpose in our society different than that of another kind of public space, such as a town square or a park. While noisy junior high kids giggling loudly over an anatomy text or running through the stacks can be asked to leave a library, these same kids roughhousing and yelling on a street corner or public park cannot - and should not - be asked to leave. Same for evangelism. Our free speech rights should not be trumped in public places, but in the case of the library, a patron's right to read, undisturbed, trumps the right of an evangelist to disturb them.

That being said, I see no reason why a church group should be denied access to booking meeting rooms at a library, provided all groups religious and otherwise, play by the same rules and have equal access to the space. Anything less is a very slippery slope. What constitutes a religion should not be defined by the government, much less any podunk town library, and, banning "religious" groups lays the framework for banning other groups. Could a meditation group be denied access? What about an astrology or role-playing group?

What do you think?

Posted by Jolinda Cary

In order to have an informed discussion on whether the polygamist practices of Warren Jeffs, the FLDS church and others like it are an example of pushing the limits of religious freedom or are little more thatn human and civil rights abuses thinly disguised as religious practice, we must understand the role polygamy plays for groups like Warren Jeffs'.

What is the history of polygamy? Where did it come from? Why do people still follow this practice? I've posted an article that will help answer some of these questions.

Link: Understanding Polygamy

Posted by Jolinda Cary

The Virgin Mary in some chocolate drippings, Jesus in a CAT scan, the word "GOD" on an alligator (God writes in all caps? Really?) - it seems like the divinity is popping up just about everywhere these days! In modern times, it may have all started in pop culture with that fateful grilled cheese sandwhich (or was the Virgin in the flour tortilla first?). However these things get started, they almost all seem to end up the same place - eBay.

Let's analyze the situation. Let's say you're doing some spring cleaning at home one afternoon, removing pennies from the sofa cushion, vacuuming up cat hair and the like when you spot a large dust bunny in the corner. You're just about to whip out your broom when you realize that this is no ordinary dust bunny - it's a dust bunny in the shape of JESUS!! After a few "Hail Mary's" you do what any normal evangelizing believer would do: you alert the media so that all the unbelievers, heathens, idolaters and pagans may know that Jesus will indeed rise again, after all, he has shown his visage in the unlikely form of a dust bunny in your living room this lovely Spring morning.

Fine. I have no problem up to this point. But, if you really believe that Jesus has appeared to you in this dust bunny (or grilled cheese sandwich or whatever) why is the next step usually to sell the item? My understanding of Biblical theology may be sophmoric, but its my understanding that when Jesus turned over the tables and drove the moneychangers out of the temple, this was not an allegory, and the message is pretty clear. The Grilled Cheese Madonna sold for $28,000 - nearly twice what minimum wage earners in some states make in a year.

Maybe its just me, but if God in person revealed himself to me, he wouldn't be for sale. And if I was tempted to sell that toasted dairy sandwich, there's no way my conscience would let me keep a penny to myself. The money would go straight into the pockets of my local homeless shelter.

Of course, if you keep it and revere it as the manisfestation or incarnation of divinity on a pretzel, aren't you guilty of idolatry?

So the next time you see Mary in your marinara or Jesus in your French poodle's fur, do us all a favor and keep it between you and God. No reason to issue a press release.

But if Siva or Kali appears in your Cheerios, do give us all a call.

Posted by Jolinda Cary

Anyone who has ever stood in line at the DMV knows that sometimes, it takes a while to get somewhere within a government bureacracy. But 9 years? At what point is it valid to assume there is some purposeful stalling going on?

It was nine years ago in 1997 that pagan groups began petitioning the US Dept. of Veterans Affairs to include the five-pointed pentacle on the headstones of soldiers killed in action. In response, the VA has twiddled it's collective thumbs, refusing to issue an official acceptance or denial.

Among the formally recognized religious symbols are those of atheists, Eckankar, and Soka Gakkai, amongst 35 others.

It seems to me that the government places wiccans in the same camp as gay and lesbian enlistees. "You can join the armed forces," the government says, "you can serve, you can fight and you can die for us, but we will vehemently deny and repress the basic essence of who you are."

Don't ask, don't tell - for both sexual/gender identity and spiritual path - is institutionalized and sanctioned discrimination. Just another example of our collective social disregard for the constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What do you think? Should pagan soldiers have the right to identify their path on their headstone?

Discuss.

Posted by Jolinda Cary

I read a quote recently (and I can't for the life of me remember who said it!) that went something like this:

"The reason for unhappiness is that 99% of the things you do in life, you do for your self. And there is none."

I'll admit it took me a minute to understand what this quote was trying to say, but I think there's something to it. We humans have the need to feel as if we're a part of something larger than our perceivable selves. Maybe its because we're pack animals living increasingly more isolated lives. Maybe its because of, as Marx called it, "alienation" from meaningful work and production. For the Buddhist, unhappiness is because of suffering that is linked to desire. To reduce suffering, one must simply reduce desire, which is, of course, easier said than done!

In truly selfless acts, however, we go beyond the self and are instantly a part of something larger. The feeling of communion with something larger, even it is just a piece of the proverbial pie, and not the Whole itself, is clearly there in social justice movements, religious congregations, and acts of montetaru generosity.

Hmmm, perhaps Durkheim was right after all.

What do you think?

Posted by Jolinda Cary

The Father, the Son and the Holy Sprit.

Its the most common way of describing the three entities which compose the trinitarian Christian God. Innocuous enough, right?

Wrong. Women have long pointed out that anthropomoprhizing God as a male is not only denigrating to female members of the Body of Christ, but also places a serious mental damper on our conception of divinity. God is, after all, not very human-like at all when it comes to physical, coporeal characteristics and, if humanity was made in "his" image, then that of course includes women as well.

Leaders in the American Presbyterian Church recently convened to discuss alternatives to the language used to describe the Trinity. Some suggestions fall a bit short (in my opinion) such as "Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River", while others are more than a mouthful: "Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides and Storm That Melts Mountains". Try saying that five times fast.

Other suggestions, however, re-create God as a feminine entity: "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb". While I'll admit that my inner feminist smiles a bit inside when I hear this, the fundamental problem is not that God is not "female enough", its our idea that God, like humans, must be either male or female.

Thanks to anthropologists like Margaret Mead and growing understanding of human sexuality, our concept of gender has changed over the years. Gone is the concept of "either/or" when it comes to sex and gender. We recognize and accept that sometimes these things just aren't as simple as black and white, gay or straight, male or female.

Why then, must God be one or the other?

Further, why does God need to be gendered at all?

Posted by Jolinda Cary

Fear. That four-letter "f-word" that imposes so much on our society. Our inner dialogues panic: "Is that thing contagious? Will her ideas rub off on him? That culture is so strange - why are they doing that? They all must be crazy." We fear for ourselves, that we may become spiritually or physically tainted. We fear for others - that given too much freedom, they may make the perceptibly wrong choices.

This four letter f-word is the reason why many Christians, including the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the American Bible Society, are taking a stance against preaching the Gospel to porn stars. Those who argue with the "Jesus loves porn stars" message seem to think that by preaching to the porn industry, the message of the gospel is somehow diluted.

I fail to see how.

Is it that porn stars cannot be "true" or "real" Christians in the same way that those of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary are? Or is it that Jesus just plain ol' doesn't love porn stars too? So, if any one of us is to slip along our path, the love of the Divine, the unconditional love of the eternal parent is somehow revoked? How comforting.

Let us not forget, "What you do to the least of my brethen, you do unto me." Porn stars, prostitutes, and the homeless are some of the most hated members of our society who have performed nothing but the most victimless of crimes. Porn exists. Porn stars exist. Homelessness exists. Homeless people live and die on the streets of our country everyday. Its the least we can do to treat all of God's people with a modicum of respect, no matter where their path in life has taken them. Our circle of compassion is limitless. Let's take a deep breath and allow it to expand just a little more.

Posted by Jolinda Cary

According to admittedly biased new research conducted by The Barna Group, up to 50 million Americans are worshipping in home-based churches, rather than the traditional neighborhood corner church. With a population of slightly less than 300 million, this means that approximately one out of every six Americans attends a home church. While this number seems ridiculously high to me, I think the trend that analyst George Barna has identified is valid.

So I wonder- what is it that the traditional setting is lacking, and, conversely, what is it that home churches are providing that a traditional setting can't? From information taken from personal interviews, Barna suggests that one reason is the intimacy, informality and group atmosphere. Rather than sitting in a pew amongst many and listening to a preacher, there is oppotunity for shared insights among the group.

This explanation, however, falls short. What he describes is bascially a Bible study group that most churches supplement their Sunday services with. There must be more to it than that.

I suggest that this shift towards home-based Christianity is reflective of a larger national trend towards personalized religion in the United States. Gone are the days of unquestioning and unwavering faith and adherence to the group mold. We Americans embody a captialistic, individualized, pioneer drive in our secular life, and this spills over to our spiritual lives as well. Aesthetic and environmental arguments aside, what need is there to settle for a VW bug when we could drive a hummer?

It is the backdrop of our larger cultural schema, I suggest, which encourages instant gratification, individual economics and goals, that allows us to turn inward and look to ourselves for religious guidance.

Posted by Jolinda Cary

The national debate on whether or not to continue to limit the civil rights extended to the gay and lesbian community has risen once again to the forefront of the public consciousness, and, as an integral part of society, religious groups are one of the loudest voices in the debate. From individual congregations, to church leaders, and, most recently and notably, the institution of the Episcopal church, it seems like everyone is struggling with whether or not to allow gay and lesbian individuals to participate in all aspects of society, including church leadership roles.

I don't pretend to have all the answers to life's mysteries, but shouldn't we always err on the side of compassion for our fellow human beings? The mere presence of such a heated debate within Christianity and other groups is evidence of a serious problem. Lets listen to those voices and, until we all decide which path is best, vote with our dollars and our spirits to extend the circle of kindness and acceptance as far as we find it within ourselves to be able. If only God can judge, let's step back and let him/her. He certainly doesn't need our help!

After all, we're all sharing this planet together. Lets make the best of it.

Posted by Jolinda Cary

Pat Robertson has been in the news for something unusual recently. Apparently, he is claiming to be able to leg press 2000 pounds. - that's one ton. My question is - why do we care, and why does he want us to know? One of his people must have issued a press release somewhere along the line since this story has been all over the news.

So, why does he want us to know? The obvious skeptical reason is that he needs some cold hard cash. This is more than just a ploy for media attention, since Robertson credits his personal line of magical protein shakes, which consists of the same thing as every other protein shake on the market.

What I find interesting in this story is that he doesn't credit God's blessings, grace or the natural power of God's creation in the human body when properly nourished. He doesn't claim God gave him the power, or that it takes great faith. No, he credits "Pat Robertson's Age-Defying Shake" which you too can have access to, if you throw down a couple hours worth of wages at your local GNC or "join" Pat's online group.

Frankly, I don't care how many pounds the guy can bench press, he looks to be two-breaths away from a heart attack every time I see him blabbering away about how women and gays caused September 11 or how some natural disaster or other is proof of God's wrath. That cherubic veneer can't hide boiling blood.

Pat, why don't you take those profits from your soy and vinegar hoodoo and donate it to inner-city schools or a soup kitchen? If you do, I promise to write another blog about it on this site for all the world to see.

Posted by Jolinda Cary

At a recent Southern Baptist conference, theologian Donald Whitney told listeners, "Postmodern spirituality will draw from almost any source. If a perceived spiritual benefit can be achieved then the practice is considered valid regardless of whether or not it is in the Bible. People believe that something they perceive as so beautiful spiritually must be right and they get into heresy."

Clearly, the need for him to issue this warning demonstrates just how many Christians would disagree. The church would do better, I suggest, to adapt and allow for Christian spirituality within the confines of the Bible rather than to condemn it as "postmodern" heresy. Perhaps what Whitney meant to suggest, and what he hints at, is that the Bible is complete in and of itself, and no extraneous spiritual practices, postmodern or not, are needed.

The danger of heresy, he argues, comes from the utilization of unnamed spiritual practices from other religions because "you unwittingly take some of the beliefs that go along with it". Unwittingly? So, for example, is it really impossible to take a yoga class without a bit of traditionally Hindu spirituality rubbing off?

What do you think? Is there room for, and, is there a need for spirituality within the confines of a text-based religion such as this conservative branch of Christianity?

Posted by Jolinda Cary

A recent op-ed piece to the Los Angeles Chronicle argued for the advancement of atheism based on several statistics suggesting that atheists (or rather, Humanists, I would suggest) tend to be both more financially generous and less susceptible to a host of social ills. While I haven't seen any statistics and I have a hunch that much, much more research would need to be conducted before such a vague and sweeping conclusion could be made, the author raises the critical point of the morality of the un-religious masses.

Linguistically, the word "morality" has been hijacked by certain squeaky wheels in our country, suggesting that those of us without a shared religious tradition also lack morality. Any statistics aside, do the likes of the so-called "Moral Majority" think the rest of us are the un-moral, that is, immoral minority? Do they really think everyone else has no sense of "right" and "wrong"? Are we really all out there dishonoring thy mother and father and rampantly coveting our neighbors' wives?

If you're reading this site right now, its likely because you have decided to engage yourself in a deep, meaningful quest for the truth, independent of any personal tradition or upbringing. And that quest, that questioning of the nature of meaning, is, perhaps, the most "moral" goal of all. So the next time you hear someone inadvertently suggest that any particular religious group has a monopoly on morality, I encourage you to politely explain to them that while you may disagree with them on the nature of right and wrong, you certainly do have a sense of morality. After all, thou shalt not judge.

Posted by Jolinda Cary

The upcoming release of the film version of the bestselling novel "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown has suddenly thrust the somewhat obscure Opus Dei group into the spotlight.

Opus Dei, a relatively small and socially conservative movement within Roman Catholicism has been the subject of controversy before, however. Ex-members have surfaced for interviews from time to time accusing the group of the usual charades levied along with the four letter c-word: cult. I'll admit that I find it somewhat humorous that they have been accused of -gasp!- requiring adherents to "[drink]coffee without milk or sugar".

The bottom line regarding the media hype is that no matter what the possible historical relevancy of the plot, author Dan Brown makes no claims to the truth of his fictional novel. Until he claims otherwise, any fingers wagged at Opus Dei remain merely hype (and successful hype, at that- this story is all over the news!), and should be wagged at the church as a whole, not the convenient scapegoat of Opus Dei.

While I'm not exactly holding my breath, it will be interesting to see what real-life investigations, accusations or schemes this film will stir up in the future in our religiously tense nation.