Religious Exemption To Hobby Lobby -- Establishment Issue?

This continues a series that frames the issue in a way that appeals to my sentiment that those for religious liberty should be against their claims. I see it more of a free exercise concern but the two clauses do interlock and this does get to my concern that the net result is selective religious establishments since all claims won't be treated equally.

Holy Misogyny: Why the Sex and Gender Conflicts in the Early Church Still Matter

I saw a book in the library that provided a revisionist look at the last week of Jesus' life (for those in the know, the co-author -- John Dominic Crossan -- suggests the approach), which looks interesting, but that is skipping a few steps.

Don't know if we are a couple weeks from a (to cite a comment) "undeniably" Christian holiday (see my comments with a cite to another small book* that helpfully sums things up).  It can be a general holiday for which Christians have the dominant presence in this country.  Either way, I myself was raised from that perspective -- secular or otherwise. So, though wanting to read more about Hanukkah and the historical story there (doing a quick search, all the library books directly about that were children books or one of cat themed holiday songs), did want to do some reading on that subject.  Instead, found a few biblical themed books.

This short book argues that women were in effect removed by the powers that be as active religious beings during the first few centuries of Christianity.  As a whole, the book had a graduate school feel though the general reader probably could get some value from the book. It did as things went along start to seem to presuppose you took intro classes on the subject and had the annoying tendency at times to assert** things that at best are reasonable theories. For instance, saying the Gospel of the Hebrews (which we only have excerpts of) is earlier than other canonical gospels, which we are repeated reminded are late glosses on earlier material. This is not repeated three or so times for this work.

I was drawn in by a good first chapter that provides evidence that there was a feminine presence in early Jewish religious practice. The book begins the theme -- what we have now, including in the final texts of the Bible (the Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures greatly influenced those who wrote the gospels, the Hebrew at times providing different meanings -- see, e.g., Bart Ehrman). The texts are late glosses on events, such as post-exile Jewish writers framing Jewish "history" with the results in mind. This would include once mainstream polytheism or the understanding that there are other gods besides Yahweh ("no gods before me" doesn't necessarily mean there are no other gods). Tribes having their own dominant god was normal practice at the time (Greek/Zeus etc.). 

This included a feminine deity such as a consort for Yahweh himself.  There also was a feminine theistic presence expressed as "Sophia" (wisdom) or the like.  The word for "spirit" was feminine in the local language. So, "holy spirit" would originally be seen as a feminine presence unlike Greek or Roman usage which would be neuter or masculine.  This makes some sort of sense -- "father, son and holy spirit" would in effect be "father, son and mother." For instance, the Gospel of Thomas has this saying:

Whoever does not hate [father] and mother as I do cannot be my [disciple], and whoever does [not] love [father and] mother as I do cannot be my [disciple]. For my mother [...], but my true [mother] gave me life."

The "true mother" refers to the holy spirit which in Aramaic have a feminine form. This all conflicts with an understanding that on the level of perfection, the line is female-male-spirit. So, icky animal stuff like sexual intercourse was looked down upon by Paul, though he accepted it as a lesser evil to get married to restrict the chance of abuse there.  Jesus also was not big on marriage since he was ultimately concerned with the end of the world. Unlike you might think from reading Family Circus or something, his view that in heaven, we are not married, but spirits without search human institutions.  This explains who those who marry more than once (e.g., if their spouse died) will hook up with in heaven.

The book explains that one way this was handled was that Jesus brought salvation so that we all were reborn -- neither man or woman, to allude to Paul, are we, but one in Christ.  In effect, women were no longer feminine, so could preach, not wear veils (opposition to those by some Muslims never seem to address how Paul supported usage of veils) and so forth. They might be asexual beings (though some groups supported sexual intercourse, at times providing symbolic religious meaning akin to ancient gods and their consorts) but they should be seen as valid religious actors. At worst, women were like the first "man" (Gen. 1:27), before male and female as separate beings were created from him. Truly in the image and likeness of God, so able to be a religious actor and teacher.  A type of imperfect equality.

The powers that be however took another approach -- women were inferior beings, those who tempted Adam (there are various ways to understand the text) from which they came -- Adam came from God, Eve from Adam's side.  Christianity gave women more of a role to play, such as to help the poor, but it had to be done in a restrained fashion. So, e.g., Paul supported the practice of women wearing veils, but later Pauline epistles (written in his name) have name unable to even speak out in church. There was potential in the Christian movement for a more egalitarian role for women, some took advantage in various respects, but ultimately "holy misogyny" won out.

This is now standard stuff in various writings -- see, e.g., Pagels, and for those familiar with the material, it is not overly surprising. It helpfully summarizes things in less than two hundred pages. The book does as noted does eventually bog down in academic language (the chapter on gnosticism is hard to slog thru) and theoretical references. Stuff about early Christian communities that at best summaries possibilities come off as fact and lack of time clues (we are covering hundreds of years of history here) will confuse the uninitiated. This is unfortunate, especially since it started off on a better footing.

Overall, it shows the various possible implications of Christian thought and how what is currently seen as orthodox is not some given, but at times a problematic specific take on various options. The Protestant Reformation involved some trying to go back the original text, before all the damn Catholic gloss ruined things.  But, the text itself is a gloss, a mixture of traditions involved that then itself was given various meanings. Readers of the gospels can tell this fairly easily with the same events given notably different glosses, from the beginning to the end.

And, what this all means, including some pretty confusing things (you know, because of the angels!), is open to interpretation. Through a glass darkly indeed. Thus, the final chapter ends on a feminist note, The Woman's Bible by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in effect given the final word. In part:

The only points in which I differ from all ecclesiastical teaching is that I do not believe that any man ever saw or talked with God, I do not believe that God inspired the Mosaic code, or told the historians what they say he did about woman, for all the religions on the face of the earth degrade her, and so long as woman accepts the position that they assign her, her emancipation is impossible. Whatever the Bible may be made to do in Hebrew or Greek, in plain English it does not exalt and dignify woman

This late 19th Century bit of scholarship (female ministers are cited among those who helped put it together) is a remarkable piece of work. I never read it though have read of it before now. The link provides a chance to read it online and it shows much perspective on the material, one of then centuries long attempts to put the Bible to the test as if it was just some other work of literature. Thomas Paine also did some of this as did others.

I continue to think this informed look at religious texts is the best way even for those who believe they are inspired writings from God.  Personally, I think they are in effect symbolic expressions of human need to provide life meaning. As with other types of prose and poetry, this does not rob them of importance or worthiness. It just provides a different type of meaning and importance to them. This is how I would use books of this nature, part of a more comprehensive analysis of things.

A final thing. The Bible, including books that different religions do not deem canonical, is in part a pleasure to read as literature. This would include certain things that are just good stories. Sometimes, the Bible is remarkably thin in this respect -- the movie Ten Commandments aside, Exodus does not provide much detail about some major events in Moses' early life.  And, at times, there are some real gems. Judith, which Catholics include in their version, has what might be one of my favorite verses:

Her sandals ravished his eyes,
her beauty captivated his mind, the sword cut through his neck!

This also led to some good art. Yes, no matter how they are degraded, women have some good material to mine from here.

---

* Christmas: A Candid History by Brian David Forbes.

**  The word "assert" to me has an implication that the person is stating something without appropriate evidence.  It to me is inappropriate if the person is reasonably providing a theory -- that would be "arguing" -- and at times, I think the word is overused. 

Senate Republicans Represent The Senate Now?

NLRB V. NOEL CANNING, ET AL. The motion of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument is granted, and the time is to be divided as follows: 45 minutes for petitioner, 30 minutes for respondent Noel Canning, and 15 minutes for amici curiae Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, et al. The motion of Professor Victor Williams for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is denied.

The agreement that led to the confirmation of NLRB board members did not end this case because the decisions by the recess appointments (the case might determine if quotation marks are required here) still have to be considered. The Senate vote on applying the filibuster to appointments clearly has significant importance to the whole question too though how it will affect the legal dispute is less so. 

This will be the first big case to be heard in the year. The most notable thing in an otherwise boring (going by Scotublog) day of orders involves this case.  It is not surprising Prof. Williams did not get oral argument time though his brief arguing that this should be rejected on political question grounds while supporting the government is worth a look and pointing to the obstruction that has led to the usage of recess appointments. It argues that the latter should be justiciable too if the former is. Unlike in the DOMA cases, do not think the federal government would mind such a ruling, so there is not a special need for additional voice.

The Senate Democrats do not oppose the President's recess appointments here, so there is more of a conflict there regarding the McConnell involvement. In DOMA, BLAG provided a voice in support of the legislature (well half of it -- this to me was a problem on standing grounds; fine with its use to provide the other side) that passed the legislation that the President felt unable to defend. Here, the Senate has chosen not to defend its interests. Why should the minority step in? Would a single senator have the power to step in to defend a personal interest?  Perhaps, time should be granted to the majority side here to provide the opposite viewpoint, explaining why Senate interests are not denied here. The executive probably doesn't quite do the trick there.

I'm generally open for liberal involvement of briefs and voices at oral arguments, but it should be evenhanded. Here, the Republican minority alone is being granted time to provide the "Senate" viewpoint. Its brief underlines that is the primary concern for their involvement.  I can see how this is not on all fours, if here clearly on their side, with the Canning defendants. Still, if there is going to be voice for the Senate, shouldn't it come from the MAJORITY side?!  Why should the minority get separate time in oral argument while the majority's interests apparently are to be left to the government's time?

It does send a symbolic message that as some justices are all concerned with Senate privileges here, only a Republican minority of the body feels oppressed here. Checks and balances are not being denied here. It's true that if there is a constitutional limit, a group cannot delegate it away.  All the same, as Williams et. al. show, the Senate has various ways to protect its interests here without the courts trying to fine tune the word "recess" (or "the").  If the U.S. Senate as a whole actually opposed this move, fine.  I oppose giving the minority a special voice here.

ETA: Miguel Estrada is the voice of the Republicans here (at least going by the brief), helping the side currently supporting what helped block his nomination to the court of appeals. He is their often cited filibuster martyr, a gift that keeps on giving, in more ways than one. Look for some interaction with his pal.

NFL Watch

Jets got back to their "we can beat mediocre teams" ways though their defense gave up a lot of points. The Giants were smacked around and eliminated. The Saints got their mojo back. Couple scrubs didn't quite have upsets. Colts backed into the playoffs. So it goes.

Barbara

A bit lackadaisical but good film about an East German woman doctor in 1980 dealing with her new settings, the result of her desire to go West. Good lead performance. It is a good low key way to tell the horrors of the regime. Also liked the director's The State I Am In.

Supreme Court Watch

Next week will concern some important EPA related oral arguments, though the discussions will probably be pretty technical at times. My take -- "Congress should be the one to sort out the EPA’s role." The USSC seems to want to avoid the 1A issue, but they also just heard a military protest case. Howard Zinn's spirit was rooting Erwin Chemerinsky on.

Nelson Mandela

His death sadly was just a matter of time (well, so for us all) given he lost so many years in prison. But, The Onion points to the truth when showing how much he is honored. OTOH, there are reasons for some dissenters. He provided a path for the oppressed everywhere, but even there, the story was a tad more complicated than the myth. Fighting of all types is.

Kiss My Math!

Social sciences was my cup of coffee in school, but math was okay -- liked geometrical proofs. Couldn't say "Pythagorean" Theorem though. Wonder Years' math babe Danica McKellar has a charming set of math books (showing it is a bit hard to explain math) meant for teenage girls. An interesting p.o.v. on subtracting negatives.

"College Athletes, Full-Ride Scholarships, and Anti-Intellectualism"

I have seen arguments that "college athletes should get paid" (and it's so wrong that they don't!) and my sentiments match this essay. Anyway, most college sports don't really make money. So, what some elite group will get special benefits, like some nobility?

Leo Tolstoy

One concern some have over the contraceptives question is that religion gets special favoritism. But, that's in the First Amendment and works both ways. Also, "religion" -- as I have noted in the past -- is widely defined, if with unclear borders. I have not read his tomes but one interesting example here is the "religion" of Leo Tolstoy.

Holiday Displays

One seasonal event for me has been reading what the Supreme Court has decided regarding holiday displays -- we each have our eccentricities -- agreeing with Stevens on the ideal policy. It is not some earth shattering issue, but favoritism does raise some concerns.

Hobby Lobby, the Employer Mandate, and Religious Exemptions

Prof. Volokh is providing a useful series on this topic, putting aside some possible disputes on specifics. I provide my "two cents" via various comments. Some comments are just depressing, more so the ones firm in the crystal obviousness of their confusion. One doozy: comparing providing coverage with personally performing abortions.

Longford

This was an interesting HBO film about Lord Longford, a British reformer's efforts (as part of his general long campaign, in part motivated by his religious beliefs, to help prisoners) to help an infamous female serial killer. Turns out he is a bit too naive about her case, so mixed as assisting the redemption promotion effort. Good lead performances.

SNF

Offensively named team raced out of the gate for 14 points and then forgot how to score. The not playing like their name team came back, but made one mistake that made the score close enough for an end of the game scoring drive for the tie. Helped by confusion over down markers, a turnover clinched the game. 5-7 is not good, better after starting 0-6.

Football

The Jets have gone from win/lose to just lose -- another rather pathetic effort that is not just about who the QB is. The Viks tried to help the Bears win in OT with a joke field goal attempt, but won in the end (with time running low). Jags won again. Devil Pats found way to win. Falcons (now horrible) even had an upset. SNF match-up of losers; MNF of winners.

Rev. Joe: Gnosis and the Holiday Season

I first read Elaine Pagels and her works on gnosticism / related materials some time ago, also listening her give a lecture (of which I remember nothing other than one person who was in the audience) in person. As a sort of prelude to a planned purchase of The New New Testament, which includes the Gospel of Thomas, I re-read Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. A review, including to a reference of a personal tragedy which she notes inspired her account, can be found here.

A bit of false advertising -- the book does discuss this early collection of sayings, but really as only part of a chapter which compares it to the Gospel of John. Pagels' theory, which seems reasonable given how the gospel takes special note of an apostle the others merely cite as one of twelve, is that John is actually a reply and rebuttal to the Gospel of Thomas (or at least the community that ultimately gave it its name). The Gospel of Thomas, or at least the parts discussed in the book (for some reason the Gospel of Thomas is not even included in an appendix -- the whole thing is only a few pages long -- which is a bit of a cheat), suggests there is a piece of the divine in each one us. There are 114 sayings in the gospel, but Beyond Belief is not a full discussion of its meaning or even possible development.*

The orthodox view is that Jesus is the only path to the divine, the Catholic Church now standing in for him. The book as a whole is a now familiar discussion on how orthodoxy developed, gnosticism losing in the process. Pagels is attracted to gnosticism largely because she sees it as more open-minded, more willing to allow for individual inspiration, difference of opinion and new insights on what the old texts mean. The movement also was elitist though, believing only some of the special knowledge (gnosis) to truly understand things. It also is known for its symbolism, hidden meanings and some opaque texts. Pagels explains how the suppression of this view was in a way more democratic. A person didn't have to be a member of the select few that understood to be saved -- s/he simply was baptized and followed the tenets of the Church. The book starts off with a pretty positive view of the charms of said institution, people willing to die for it, in part because its support for the poor and the integrity of the believers.

The mysticism that is reflected in gnosticism continued in other forms, including Sufism in Islam. I'll probably reference something involving Islam and this country's path to religious freedom (of course, not as important as corporate owners denying employees the ability to use their own compensation to make conscientious choices involving birth control ... the next big thing the Supreme Court will handle on that front) after finishing a book on the subject.  Until then.  [ETA: I'm finding the book a bit too detailed at the moment though the general subject matter is interesting. So, don't expect that report any time soon.]

Moving on, did look at Ronald Dworkin's (the famous legal philosopher) final book that argues that religion can exist without God. I read a summary of his position, notes of sort on a series of lectures, and appreciated the effort. Dworkin argues that our stance on life's meaning can have religious significance, also seeing religious value in nature overall. The book confuses some of this with some philosophical analysis (Dworkin often makes some good points and then tries to force the issue by arguing a narrower basis than necessary) that makes for some tedious reading.  A summary of things can be found here.

that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions [Washington, 1789]

Meanwhile, the holiday season has begun. Michael Dorf suggests the problematic aspects of Thanksgiving and Hanukkah (by quirk of the Jewish calendar, coming very early), but as I noted there, we need not focus on them. This is not a matter of forgetting the imperialism involved, which is part of the story. Still, a day of thanksgiving (which traditionally included appeals to humility -- that is, the very need to give thanks) and family holidays overall is not merely a day for turkey, gluttony, commercialism or even football (of course, darn Dallas won late again ... Ravens hung on in a good night game though).

 Hanukkah also -- note to self that this would be a good thing to read about** -- seems to me to be ultimately about freedom of religion. The official Hebrew Scriptures ended with pagans in control -- the Persians -- but pagans who respected their freedom of worship. Greeks and Romans as a whole also honored that (if not quite in the modern form). Hanukkah celebrated a defeat over a leader who oversteps the agreed upon bounds.  I discuss this framing of things (realizing there are various aspects of the story) some more here.

And, now Christmas season -- as seen by a surfeit of Christmas movies (multiple Lifetime and Hallmark channels have lots of space ... have seen a few good ones already plus old favorites) ... has begun. There already was a Good Luck Charlie / Jesse joint episode. Sort of lame. Note to others -- I do not recall the last time there was an extended stoppage of a subway train, something that used to happen a bit more. Given the size of the system, this is but one of those little wonders.

---

* One thing that excites some is that the Gospel of Thomas (though its esoteric nature alone makes it not surprising it was rejected as canonical) possibly takes us back to the first century -- which is not true of most of the works often cited as possible alternatives to canonical texts here.  The Didache is also referenced, another very early work that is a sort of liturgical guide for believers.  One verse-by-verse analysis.

** Update:  Various online accounts suggest the meeting of the Jews and Alexander is cloaked in myth or confusion, including Josephus' account. But, the one account I read in the library summarizing that the Jews retained their ability to practice their faith obtained from the Persians when a new empire came to town until the leadership the Maccabees rebelled against changed gears still seems to be true as far as it goes. Regardless:

²⁴ The number of details and the bulk of material can be overwhelming for anyone who wants to read an account of the events. But I have attempted to simplify it for all readers; those who read for sheer pleasure will find enjoyment and those who want to memorize the facts will not find it difficult. ²⁶ Writing such a summary is a difficult task, demanding hard work and sleepless nights. ²⁷ It is as difficult as preparing a banquet that people of different tastes will enjoy. But I am happy to undergo this hardship in order to please my readers. ²⁸ I will leave the matter of details to the original author and attempt to give only a summary of the events. ²⁹ I am not the builder of a new house who is concerned with every detail of the structure, but simply a painter whose only concern is to make the house look attractive. ³⁰ The historian must master his subject, examine every detail, and then explain it carefully, ³¹ but whoever is merely writing a summary should be permitted to give a brief account without going into a detailed discussion. ³² So then, without any further comment, I will begin my story. It would be foolish to write such a long introduction that the story itself would have to be cut short.

Good philosophy from 2 Maccabees.