I Hate It When I Have to Agree with Freud

I think of myself as Jungian. Freud frustrates the heck out of me, because I will be reading along and thinking "gee, he has a point, here" and then we will come up with some incredibly misogynous statement about women and piss me off so bad I can't hear another thing he says. Freud, for some reason, is one of those people who really know how to push my buttons. However, today, in class, we were discussing "Society and Its Discontents" and I have to admit, he got me.

Freud doesn't like the idea of Utopias. His thought is that our Ids are in constant battle with our Egos and our Super-Egos in a constant struggle to sublimate our feelings of sexuality and aggression into socially acceptable channels. Freud thought that Utopia was an unattainable ideal based on unrealistic expectations on the sublimation of those desires, and thus, instead of creating a "good life", Utopia would, instead, create a group of highly neurotic frustrated individuals whose Super-Egos are punishing them constantly for their failed enterprise.

That last part is not the part that I agree with, but, I have to say, I think he did have something. I think he may have been ALMOST there, but too Victorian to go the rest of the way.

In the 1844, John Humphrey Noyes started a religious utopia not too far from here called the Oneida Community. The group stayed together for about 30 years, making it incredibly successful by Utopian standards. One of the things that the Oneida Community had going for it was something called "Complex Marriage". They had this system where no members of the Community would couple with any other member. Each member had their own bedroom, but these folks were far from celibate. If some member was attracted to another member, (presumably of the opposite sex), they would go up to them and ask them if they wanted to have sex. If they said “yes”, then the two would go to one of the women there who were in charge of these things. If they met all the criteria based on age and the how many times they had been together in the past, then they would go to one of the special rooms set up in the house expressly for that purpose and consummate the act. Both men and women could ask, as men and women were completely equal. However, there was something called an Ascending/Descending system. Young men would have sex with post menopausal women while young women would have sex with middle-aged men. The reason for this was that they used male continence as birth control. Young men couldn’t control themselves, so they were put with older women that couldn’t get pregnant. Young women had sex with older men that could control themselves and therefore not get them pregnant.

Now, here is the thing... John Humphrey Noyes eventually got into trouble because he set up a system where he could sleep with as many 16 year old virgins as he wanted to! As soon as the authorities figured this out, he ran off to Canada, where he eventually died.

HOWEVER, before that, no one person was allowed to have sex with any other one person too many times because it was thought that coupling would create a situation where people thought of each other as property. Oneida was a religious commune. It practiced something called “Bible Communism”. All resources were held in common, including each other. Marriage, as is commonly practiced now, was considered an ownership relationship, and the Oneida Community believed that no person had the right to own another.

So, was Noyes a social visionary? Or was he just a man trying to figure a way to not have to sublimate his sexual desire to sleep with as many young, pretty women as he could? The Shakers made their Utopia celibate. Personally, if I can’t have sex in your Utopia, I don’t want to dance. Celibacy and Utopia do not go together in my personal worldview, although for a lot of people they do.

In the 1980s, many feminists (now called Second Wave feminists in academic circles), challenged the notion that marriage was good for women. For the radical thinkers at the time, monogamous relationships were nothing short of property ownership (sound familiar?), and people, women in particular, because there was an implication that this right had always been there for men, had a right to fulfill their sexuality with as many partners as they desired. This was particularly prevalent in the Lesbian Feminist Community of the time, and it was not common for women to ask other women “So… are you monogamous, or non-manogamous”. It was also fairly common for some of these women to attempt various experiments in non-traditional relationships. So, the question on the table is, again, this, were WE social visionaries? Or Lesbians who just really, really wanted to be able to sleep with as many other women as we could?

And, why does it matter? Why DOES a couple have to own each other, if there is no shared property, no diseases being passed, and there are no children involved? Maybe Freud was right… the unnecessary sublimation of sexual desire leads to neurotic obsessive/compulsive discontent. If that is so, then any attempt at Utopia should be engaged in the active pursuit of the elimination of that unnecessary sublimation.

Absinthe Returns in a Glass Half Full of Mystique and Misery

It is on my list of things-to-do-before-I-die to try Absinthe. I find this drink fascinating for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it was banned, apparently more for political reasons than medical.

Chocolate began as beer-like brew 3,100 years ago

This is just because most everyone I know likes chocolate and beer... sometimes together.

I will add that most people do not realize what an incredibly advanced civilization existed in Central American before the Europeans came and decimated it.

Humdinger of a Project: Tracing Slang to Ireland

I have known for a long time that a lot of our slang comes from Gaelic ever since I took Scottish Gaelic classes back in the 90s. It never occurred to me to write a book about it, but, hey, when would I have had the time?

This is interesting, anyway.

Blogging for Money

I have had several people ask me about the whole idea of making a little money on their blog. I don't make very much because I don't post that often (but that is going to change). But click on the title to find an article about blogging for money.

Most of us have some sort of advertisement on their blogs, anyway. If you use a tool like LiveJournal, and you don't have a paid account, then the ads that show up on your blog are there to pay your way on the servers and for SixApart to pay the salaries for those people who maintain their software. If you are reading this, then a very small percentage of the advertising here goes to me. It's America. It's Capitalism. We all have a right to make a living.

Christianity's actual tenets don't resemble those of radical sects - Opinion

In keeping with my point about Christianity, here is an article published last April by the Protestant Chaplain at Syracuse University.

Christianity's actual tenets don't resemble those of radical sects - Opinion

Of Lesbians and Gay Men

You know, I hate to bring this up, but I think that men are still making more money than women. In fact, I believe the statistic is, the average woman is earning 79 cents to the average man's dollar. Now, that is better than it was, but it still is not equitable.

Now, where this is really evident, is in the LGBT community, where the average Lesbian couple is making $1.58 to the average Gay male couple's $2.00. The reason that I am bringing this up, is that I live in a neighborhood that has an unusually high percentage of LGBT people. And, in my neighborhood, most of the Gay men are doing swimmingly better than most of the Lesbian.

I don't have an answer for this. It is just something that I have been noticing.

Articles Of Faith: Media's portrayal of religion skews to the right

Here is one of my pet peeves. This article, which can be accessed by clicking the link above, is about how conservative right-wing Christians get TONS more media attention that the group that actually comprises MOST American Christians. That group is the moderate - progressive Christians.

One of the first things that I had to come to grips with when I came to work in the Chapel of this liberal Northeastern private university was that I had to throw out the prejudices that I had against Christians. The people that I now work for and with are nearly all Christians, and in this environment, it is not the "don't talk about religion" environment of a corporation. Religion is everywhere, and everyone here has to deal with it all the time.

When I first saw my job posted, I saw that it was one that I am immanently qualified for, except for the fact that it was for a Protestant ministry. Instead of just dismissing the experience out of hand, I went right to the Protestant minister and said, "Hi, I am extremely qualified for the job that you posted, but you have to know right off, I am a Lesbian Pagan."

"Fine", he responded, "we don't discriminate on the basis of religion." He didn't even mention the "Lesbian" part of my declaration, because, as I was eventually to discover, the Protestant ministry here has a very high percentage of LGBT people as active members.

Far from the being the judgmental, Bible-thumping lunatics that are normally portrayed in the media, the Christians that I am surrounded by are caring, supportive, and emotionally available. There is always food here to share, people are always willing to help, or to offer rides, or just listen when I am having a rough day. And, the best thing yet, is that everyone knows that I am a Pagan, everyone knows that I am a Lesbian, everyone knows my partner, and everyone treats us both with all the honor and respect that they would treat anyone else.

While the media has told me one thing, my own observations have told me something else entirely. It is easy to see why many LGBT people as well as many Pagans believe that there is only one kind of Christian, and that is the late Jerry Falwell. In reality, that is no more true than the belief that all Muslims are crazed suicide bombers waiting for the next opportunity to blow up a bunch of college students in a cafe.

In Praise of Severus Snape

I feel grossly under-prepared to write about anything Harry Potter, as I have only finished one of the books and seen all of the movies. However, I feel really compelled, today, to write about this. Several people on my fList have taken the Sorting Hat test that is going around, and nearly everyone tested as Gryffindor. A point that I want to bring up, though, is that ALL of the houses at Hogwarts are equally important, much like the 4 universal elements (which they do, btw, correspond to). Actually, it has come into my consciousness, that each house represents control of their element, or, perhaps, dominion over that element.

So, with that in mind, Ravenclaw represents dominion over the Intellect, (focusing on knowledge and not wasting energy on useless curiosity), Gryffindor represents dominion over Will, using that power for the greater good rather than self-service. Slytherin dominion over the Emotions, not allowing your heart to get in the way of your purpose. Hufflepuff represents dominion over the body, making sure that all of the physical needs are taken care of so that all else can function.

When thought of in that way, Sytherin becomes pretty important, doesn't it? However, sometimes control over the emotions can seem very cruel and harsh. We just recently had to put our oldest cat to sleep. At what point do you make that decision? Right after that, we were faced with a bad ear infection in another one. Where is the money going to come from for that? It didn't happen this way, but there was a possibility that we were going to have to put the other one to sleep for the greater good of all.

Snape is one of my favorite characters in HP, but this is no surprise, because "Dracula" is one of my favorite books. I find Dracula to be one of the most incredible teachers! The same goes for Snape.

In the first book, for example, Snape starts out by mocking Harry's fame. ("Harry Potter. Our new—celebrity."). He then goes on to ask question of Harry that he has had no chance to learn ("What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?", "Let's try again. Potter, where would you look if I told you to find me a bezoar?" "What is the difference, Potter, between monkshood and wolfsbane?"). Potter does not have any idea about any of these, although Hermione clearly does. Hermione studied before hand, Harry did not (not that he could have, but that is beside the point). Why does Snape berate Harry so? What has he got to gain by picking on and humiliating this one underfed boy?

He is protecting him, that is why. Hermione knows all the answers, but it doesn't matter. Her parents are dentists. No one knows her. Harry is not only famous, he is very unpopular with Voldemort, who will come after him. Harry's fame will, in no way, protect him from Voldemort. Snape is teaching Harry "life is hard and cruel and dangerous... BE PREPARED! Scary things are real, and they can do much more than just go bump in the night!). Life isn't all fluffy bunnies and lavender caches. Sometimes we really need people that are willing to be mean, or even cruel to us in order to make us strong. It brings to mind the film "Conan the Barbarian". The villain in that is called Thulsa Doom. He killed Conan's parents when he was a child, then captured Conan and sold him into slavery, where he spent his childhood pushing a millstone like a mule. Then Conan was sold to another man who turned him into a gladiator so that he spent his youth fighting for his life in a ring. Thulsa Doom is not anyone's idea of a "nice guy". However, he makes an excellent point when he says: "What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste. Contemplate this on the tree of woe. Crucify him!"

That scene in the Sorcerers Stone is one of my favorites because I love what Snape says about Potions. I am convinced that he is actually talking about Blood, as is the kind that flows in the veins and remembers who you are. Snape says: "You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potion-making,..As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death..." (He is also, of course, talking about dominion of emotion... emotions are carried in the blood as hormones).

For some reason, this line reminds of the ending line in "Blood Music" by Greg Bear, "Nothing is lost, nothing is forgotten.
It was in the blood, the flesh. And now it is forever."

So, thank you, Severus Snape, for reminding me of how some of my greatest lessons have come from the some of the harshest teachers.

Cambodia Bans Evangelism; Accuses Christians of 'Disrupting Society'

As always, click on title to see original article.

On the surface, this headline seems pretty funny. If you happen to be an Evangelical Christian, you might find it outrageous, but if you happen to be one of the rest of the majority of Americans and are of other faith (which includes everything from Pagan to Protestant), then you are probably chuckling.

Fact is, though, this is not all that extreme. In fact, I happen to work at an interfaith chapel on a private university campus, and in order to preserve the religious freedom of all of the students of the campus, there is a strict "non-proselytizing" rule. In essence, it is to prevent "disruption".

From myth to reality - meet the chimps who eat lions

To read original article, click on the title.

I forgot to mention that I am also interested in crypto-zoology and anthropology, and when the two of these things come together for me... Wow!

I am a big believer in Sasquatch. I saw a footprint when I was a kid, and I never forgot it. You know, when I was a kid, giant squid were merely legend, too.

Supposedly, all non-human hominids are extinct. What it they aren't? What would that mean? What kind of rights would they have? What would we learn from them? I think this is all very exciting.

Al-Qaida likely to attack US, intel says

As always, click on the title to see the referenced article.

I have spent a long time... many, many hours, trying to figure out what could or would be the possible benefit for "terrorist" groups to blow up innocent people, whether that be in the U.S., Iraq, Israel, or anywhere else, for that matter. Really, what are those folks trying to prove? "Do what we want or we will blow you up?" Does that make any sense? "Those people" (you decide for yourself who "those people" are) "are nothing but a bunch of violent, religious fanatics." Hardly. That logic doesn't make any sense, either.

I have finally come to a conclusion. My conclusion is, Terrorism, and, by that I mean suicide bombers, planes flown into big buildings, anything like that, is a Fund Raiser, in much the same way that some religious groups do mission/service trips.

For example, one of the way a church in this country may choose to raise funds is by doing some sort of "good work", like sending a group of people to New Orleans to help with clean up, for example. Before the actual trip takes place, the church may bring it up during collections or even by a direct mailing campaign to get people to contribute to this mission. This is how the trip is funded, and most of the money collected will probably go to the cost of the trip itself. While folks are down there working, there are pictures taken, and, usually, a minister will go with them. Then when they all get back, the pictures, which are pictures of people everyone knows from the congregation, dressed in hazmat suits shoveling muck in ruined houses, are published in the church bulletins, news letters, direct mailings, and anything else where the church can ask people for more money. This shows the people with the wallets what good work their church actually does, makes them feel good, and makes them want to be a part of that by contributing more money.

There is nothing wrong with this. This is how non-profit fundraising works, whether it is a religious organization, a charitable organization, or saving the whales. They ask their donors for money to do specific things, then they show their donors what they did, so that their donors will be more inclined to donate.

I am thinking, at this point, that we can view "al-Qaida", and similar groups, as "non-profit organizations". I think they are collecting money from donors, and then, when they pull off these big, deadly explosions and it makes lots of press, then their donors are more likely to donate again.

Now, I am not saying that blowing up people is morally the same as feeding hungry children. It is not. However, one of the Five Pillars of Islam is Zakah, or "alms-giving", and the amount given is based on the giver's wealth. So, my guess is that people who donate to terrorism see some benefit to themselves. Obviously, large numbers of very poor, oppressed, depressed people are going to feel angry at U.S. apparent affluence and conspicuous consumption. It is the rule in non-profit fundraising that the most amount of money comes from large numbers of small donations.

How about wealthy people, though? Who, among the world's wealthiest people, could benefit the most from a destabilization of the U.S. economy? This is a question that I don't have an answer for, but I would guess it has something to do with oil production. I am a religious scholar, not a macro-economist, and I will be the first to admit it.

However, I would be interested in hearing from people who ARE macro-economists. The bottom line here is this: In all things, follow the money.

BRITISH MUSEUM MAKES IMPORTANT BREAKTHROUGH IN BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY

In case you are new to Blogger technology, you can find the original article by clicking on the title above.

This is exciting stuff! The passage in the Tanakh (which most people in this country call the Old Testament) that is referenced here is:

"When Jerusalem was taken, all the officials of the king of Babylon came and sat in the middle gate: Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim the Rabsaris, Nergal-sharezer the Rabmag, with all the rest of the officials of the king of Babylon." (This is from the New Revised Standard Version, Angicized Edition). "Sarsechim" is the name, and "Rabsaris" is the title "Chief Officer" or, alternatively "Chief of Eunuchs". The event to which is refers is the story of the fall of Jerusalem's first Jewish Temple, commonly called Solomon's Temple.

It is very unusual to find ANY new direct sources for this period, and pretty much, scholars that work on that period spend their time studying over and over the same material.

What is cool about Jewish scripture though (aka, Old Testament), is that the ancient Jews were EXTREMELY careful about the accuracy of the copies. The Dead Sea Scrolls included much older copies of many of the books, and these copies are virtually identical to newer copies, even when separated in age by hundred of years.

The only thing is, most people read these books as "religious texts" rather than "historic documents" (contrary to what they may claim). Reading them as historic documents, in my mind, is MUCH more exciting than as religious texts. The story they tell is amazing

Couple accused of using drugs and witchcraft to lure teen into sexual relationship

This is an interesting article published by one of Fox's local channels. First of all, the article makes the statement that the couple was "accused of using sex and drugs and the Wicca religion to lure a 15-year-old girl into a world of seduction." What, may I ask, is a "world of seduction"? Sounds pretty lurid, doesn't it? Secondly, the words "sex", "drugs" and "Wicca" are all strung together as though they are somehow related. Third, since according to the article, "She (the victim) was a willing participant, if you will,". Since this quote comes from a representative of the Santa Maria Police Dept., apparently it was the journalist who decided to use the word "victim" to describe the 15 year old. It is important to keep in mind here, the POSSIBLE crimes committed were sex with a minor and illegal drug use. Wicca is a religion and protected by the First Amendment.

"She was lured into this couple's grasp through the Wicca religion and utilizing ceremonial witchcraft and drugs -- both marijuana and Ecstacy -- to lower her inhibitions." I, somehow, don't think one would ever see a statement like "She was lured into the couple's grasp through the Christian religion utilizing intense prayer and drugs", although, I am sure, that this has occurred at least once. Furthermore, Wicca and/or ceremonial magick are not any more or less useful in "luring" than intense prayer would be.

Finally, I want to mention that the couple was arrested at their apartment near an elementary school. Nice. Since 15 year olds do not attend elementary school, and since California is very over crowded, and it is hard NOT to be near SOME elementary school or another, this clearly intended to make an association between Wicca and child pornography. Again... nice.

In all fairness, I actually found this article on ReligionNewsBlog.com, (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18729/wicca-4) which includes in handy readiness notes explaining Wicca to an uninformed reader. However, I think that it is interesting that the BLOG is acting in a more responsible fashion than a Fox News "journalist".

Catholicism is the only true church, Vatican declares

As much as I disagree with the opinion that Catholicism is the only one true church, I can see why it is that the Pope had to make this declaration.

The Catholic Church was built on Matthew 16:18, in which Jesus states: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (Gk petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

Peter is considered by the Catholic Church to be the first Pope, and every Pope since then in chosen in what is known as "Apostolic Succession". In other words, the current Pope is considered the latest "apostle" in a long line. Therefore, unless another church can prove "Apostolic Succession", then in it not really a church. That rule covers all of Christiandom, what about Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc.?

The Nicene Creed establishes that there is "one true God", and that Jesus was His "only begotten Son". The Church cannot really compromise on this point without going against the Nicene Creed, and I can't see the Catholic Church ever doing that.

So, where does that leave the rest of us non-Catholics? Well, as I see it, if you are Catholic, you can go ahead and believe what your church tells you. Fortunately, however, I happen to live in one of the countries of the world that will allow me, for the most part, to choose my religion, and my religion happens to believe this:

There are many gods, and they are all valid and true.
There are many churches, and they, too, are all valid and true.
And I believe this as strongly as any Catholic believes otherwise, and perhaps more than most.

Therefore, it doesn't really matter to me what Catholics believe, as long as I continue to not live in a theocracy.

Lets keep America free of theocracy, shall we?

The Strange Case of the Death of Mary Caitlin Mahoney

On July 6, 1997, employees opening the Starbucks in Georgetown, DC found the body of Mary Caitlin Mahoney along with the bodies of her two co-workers, all shot dead. It had been an apparent botched robbery. In the 10 years that followed, there have been a great deal of talk about this event in the blogosphere, rumors and conspiracy theories propagate like rabbits on steroids. I, for one, would like to know what really happened. Why? I knew her personally. She was a friend and neighbor of mine, and I spent time with her the day before she died. It has been 10 years, and every so often I Google her to find out what is the latest. Some of what I see I find interesting, but most of it I think is pure nonsense. I have decided that it is time for me to do some looking into some of this stuff and try to figure out how much is real, plausible, or pure bull.

Here is what I know for sure:

Caity used to live in an apartment building in Baltimore that was formerly an orphanage for a Civil War era Episcopal Church. At the time she lived there, most, if not all, of the inhabitants were Lesbians, like herself.

Caity used to go running in the morning before dawn, much to the distress of some of her neighbors, who worried that this habit was not safe in that neighborhood. Caity, however, said that when it was her time to go, it was her time, and it would not matter whether she ran in the morning or not.

Caity moved out of that apartment in order to move to D.C. where she had gotten a job managing the Starbucks in Georgetown.

Caity loved Starbucks and loved her job there, and the day before she died, she was very excited about direction that her life was taking. She was very optimistic, and expressed repeatedly how positive everything in her life was at that moment.

On July 4, 1997, Caity went to a picnic in PA on a retired farm. She rode to that party from Baltimore with three other women (I was one of them), but she left before dark without saying good-by to me. I heard it was because she had to go to work. She did not mention having to leave early on the way there, so this is puzzling to me, but I do not have any other information about this at this time.

That is all I can think of for now. I will be investigating this further in future posts.