Queen Eleanor, wife to Henry II of “Becket” fame (and yes, I phrase it such for convenience of those who learn what history they know from movies–insulting bitch, aren’t I?) reportedly once said “I was a bad wife, a bad mother, and a bad queen.” I have to admit, having read about Eleanor, I cannot imagine her saying that in anything other than a sarcastic vein. I think I have her beat, at least if you listen to the pundits of the day—and I am worse without benefit of a crown. If this month is any indication, this will be another “winter of my discontent” likewise without a crown mashing my hair.

I am surfeit, this morning: filled up. First, for the strength to put to page the discordant screechings flying round my brain like banshees, I had to fill myself with the beauty of the a morning walk in the rainy marsh and it was breath-taking in dramatic turn of the season glories. And fortified with coffee to banish the wood smoke induced cough, I am now ready to release the other surfeit onto this page.

For some while, legal wrangling and much public chatter has revolved around some of the freedoms we are all to agree our soldiers are dying to preserve. This got me to thinking—never a good thing, some would tell you. One of the “freedoms” we hear trumpeted most stridently is “freedom of religion.” Now, here is where I surpass Eleanor in one way—I am terrible at religion in the traditional sense. I was raised by an atheist and while I couldn’t take comfort in that (there WOULD be this nagging sense of “Presence” in my life), nor could I embrace anything traditional. I’d make a very bad Jew: had I been Abraham or Job I would have told the white-bearded sadist where to go in short order. I tried to be Catholic and that was a failure, too. I didn’t see why I should wear out my body producing more children than I could feed, among other issues and no, sorry, I never “found Jesus” at all. And Islam, well, studying history and philosophy as I did, it seemed a blending of the first two, so if I didn’t like eggs or cheese; really, how likely was it that I would want an omlette? I am honestly not trying to give offense to members of these three great faiths; but it simply didn’t work for me. I find what spirituality I do attempt to be experimental in the extreme—I am lumped into something called “neo-paganism” as a result of experiences that seemed very like what anthropological literature calls shamanic initiation. But Doubt is ever the first deacon of my personal “church” and for every experience that speaks of the noumenal world to me, others scream about the illogic and nonsense of it. So, if Eleanor is in Hell and some of those I now WILL attempt to offend are correct in their rantings, she and I will get to compare notes on who is worse at mothering and marriage.

Freedom of religion, eh? The largest scream on this the last few years has been raised by holy pharmacists who do not want to dispense birth control pills or worse, morning after pills, to women. Now, this has been adequately explained as to why birth control is NOT abortion before. That is not what I am about; I just have a few questions for these pill-counting breathren (and they are always men, who do NOT bear the physical stress of pregnancy).

Do you likewise refuse to ring up condoms for men?

Do you insist on a marriage license for men asking for Viagra prescriptions?

Do you, in fact, never wonder (since the voice of God MUST be in your ear) why these men, even if married should have Viagra—cause, if birth control should be natural, wouldn’t it be conceivable (no pun intended) that the inability to get it up IS God’s own birth control? Why would it be ok to contravene the naturalness of no hard ons, but not alright to contravene fertility….or at least delay it? Why for that matter is it acceptible to carry umbrellas and not get rained upon? Lets carry natural law to its full extent, maybe?

But let us drop that and go more into the presumed laws of God, and without leaving the grocery store—which is where many pharmacies are located. Every religion has laws…even my own experimental slightly Hellenism infused brand has a few precepts to cling unto like bride to husband! If one is Mormon, and works in a large grocery store, does the Mormon refuse to stock or ring up beer, cigarettes, tea or coffee? I mean, these things are forbidden to them….so why don’t they impose that on everyone? Will courts coddle them in their religiously informed sensibilities? Shall they be guaranteed employment as checkers even if they have to call for another person everytime someone brings a six pack to the cashier.

Are the courts going to support Jews and Muslims who don’t want to touch or ring up that pork roast? And my Hindu friends, well, they shouldn’t be required to see or sell packages of beef—the horror of slaughtering the sacred cow and all. Some of my neo-pagan acquaintances believe that iron implements offend their deities—-shall we tell them they never have to handle the iron skillets in over in the houseware’s aisle? How far shall we go in catering to religious sensibilities. Though, I must note, all sarcasm aside, some of these things have utterly no “sense” about them. Like a former very strict Baptist neighbor who believed that since the Bible said “Women shall not dress in the clothing of men” that she and her daughters should never wear trousers of any sort, should people like her be able to refuse to sell jeans or slacks in women’s and girls’ sizes? “No, I’m sorry, that is wrong, you will have to take your order to that already damned godless bitch on checkstand #6!”

But, for fun, let’s leave the relatively safe confines of the grocery store. It’s fall and that means Halloween…..our Baptist Rightist in the store likely won’t sell you those bags of candy for Halloween, by the way, either. Because if a woman in America sues in court to protect her freedom of religion, since it is impinged upon by co-workers’ decorations for Halloween because it “exposes” her to “paganism” you can imagine how such folks would feel about feeding the frenzy that is 31 October.

And if a pagan gets offended at an effigy of a witch hanging in Salem at this time of year and calls it a “hate crime” because OMG…that is a slam at Wiccans? Holy crap, call the Smithsonian…those historical displays might actually be hate crimes; can’t be apropos since a century or two ago, Salem DID hang witches, right? We couldn’t acknowledge the past without it infringing upon some-freaking-body’s sense of religious proportion.

And maybe we should all sheathe our bodies in veils, because there are many immigrants from areas in Africa where women are taught that the mere exposure of more than their face and hands will loose sexual anarchy upon the world—-creating an unavoidable sexual frenzy in men. Maybe that is really what my former Baptist neighbor was worried about, but too shy to say aloud? And what about my best friend in high school, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth? Her father believed radio and television were “of the Devil” and I had to take current events notes for her. Tell all those restaurants with televisions in the corners that they are creating a bar to the holy, as sure as a flight of steps to a wheelchair, by God.

Now, obviously, many readers are saying something like “But NObody is suggesting those things.” Well, no….not yet, anyhow. But logically speaking, they could. It could just be that slippery a slope and may be already. A television commentator (you know, it just MIGHT be of the devil??!) was asking how a Catholic like JFK or a Mormon like Romney could be both a “good President” and a good Catholic or Mormon. Now, come ON…..this man actually said it was impossible. So, let me get this straight, if one cannot be the head of state of a country without imposing one’s own religious values upon said nation….how the hell can we tell the difference between America and Iran, or Saudi Arabia? There are people out there who now believe that in America a man of faith MUST be a theocrat? Have we somehow fallen, without notice, back into the 1600’s? Is a neo-JFK going to pillory Protestants like a neo-Bloody Mary? And is some neo-Elizabeth going to send Catholic priests back to hiding in secret rooms and fleeing across the borders to live?

How is this ridiculous dialogue even happening? Can we all step away from the stupid yet? Who on earth decided that following one’s own precepts of faith MUST mean imposing the consequences of those acts on everyone else, regardless of their faith. And may I say, America is being particularly selective about just which religious ideals it is lauding to the skies—most of them deal with subjugating women and controlling their reproductive and sexual lives. I find it more than a “stupidism” that sexism and cruelty of this nature is being labeled as obedience to ANY god. Lest you think my list of stupidisms is just a feminist rant, let me add one small rant about that—I recently saw a blog comment about Doris Lessing’s Nobel prize. The commentor wasn’t sure how she felt about Lessing’s body of work, because she wasn’t sure what the writings meant for feminism….now if she meant that as it sounded, THAT too, is a stupidism. I say this as an old time feminist, thank you very much.

One IS falling into the stupid, slipping down the slope of slippery shit ANY time one decides to judge everything in life by only ONE meter—-whether the meter is religion, politics, feminism, fashion or any other artifact of human existence. For humanity’s sake, people, pull on some boots with traction tread and haul your asses back up the hill into some sort of intellectual rigor. Even those deities I semi-believe in are all “big boys and girls” who do not need me to do their dirty work, they can take care of themselves and what WE humans need to do is the same thing. We need to CARE for each other and stop acting like automatons of bad movie lore. Or we will become nothing but artifacts for some other culture to judge.

Comments are closed.