Taliban & Genesis

 Now that the Taliban has returned to power in Afghanistan, girls over 13 are once again denied education and all women’s freedom is restricted.  There, women and girls are regarded as chattel to be controlled by men.  That was the ‘norm’ of all history prior to the 20^TH Century.

 

As humanity gradually inches toward enlightenment, we now see horrible mistakes make in the name of ‘progress’.

   --historically, kingdoms sent adventurers to find and conquer ‘new lands’; then, subjugating the natives, claimed the territory for their far-away monarchs. 

   --in the 1600’s, an emerging ‘industry’ was designed to capture and restrain dark-skinned humans, then transport them across the ocean to sell them to white slave-owners.

  --in the mid1900’s, a nation perceiving itself as ‘superior’, rounded up other humans deemed ‘inferior’; then devising a ‘final solution, gassed and burned them in incinerators.

 

Ever since the earliest institution of government, women were not included.  That position came to be known as: Patriarchy—a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded.  In our time the Taliban demonstrates that.

 

In general, men and women have different fundamental perspectives on life.  Individually, points-of-view vary across the spectrum, but taken as a whole, males tend to value power and control; while females value nurturing and compassion.  Each perspective has its value, but it was patriarchy that determined the unfolding of civilization.  By having excluded the ‘female voice’ from participating in shaping the world, our world has become distorted.  That is not to suggest either voice is superior . . . the problem came from males believing their voice was superior, and disavowed the female voice.

 

 

Bible stories tell of how people of that time sought to understand their world.  They lacked science and used story-telling to explain life.  Because it was only males in control, stories were heavily male oriented.  We wonder how the stories might have been different if the story-tellers were women.  How might a woman have told the story of Genesis?                                                                    

 

 

          If we look at Genesis (2 & 3)—the very beginning of scripture—as written, the story is told of God placing the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the center of the Garden of Eden and forbidding the human couple to eat of the fruit . . . but Satan tempts them, saying they will be like God if they eat the fruit.  The woman picks the fruit and eats, then gives it to the man to eat . . . (here we see the male author blaming women for original sin . . . and thus justifying millenniums of oppression of women and establishing the superiority of the male gender) and then we see God, learning they disobeyed him, so in anger, he curses them and their children and drives them from the Garden.

 

 

Had a woman told the story in Genesis, it would have gone differently . . . 

 

 

Retelling the Story 

 

 

          In the beginning, God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden, saying to the human couple it was their choice to eat or not; but for their own good he cautioned them not eat it because it was the nature of The Garden to hold only the good, so if they ate of the fruit and came to know evil (it would become part of them) they would have to leave. They would then have to make their own way in the world.

          When Satan told them that if they ate the fruit they’d know all things like God, Adam became restless.  He wanted to be like God.  He was curious, ‘what was this thing called evil?’ and he longed to see that world beyond the Garden.  He talked of adventure to Eve, how exciting it would be to explore the unknown.  She’d listen and agree that it sounded interesting, but she was more content with the garden and it didn’t seem wise to go against God’s advice.  One day as they sat under the tree Adam said:

          “Eve, reach up and pick me one of the fruit.”

          “I think that’s not a good idea” she said.

          He laughed and said, “Come on, Hun, trust me, it will be OK.”

          “But God said not to”

          “No, God just advised against it—and how do we know what we are missing if we don’t’ try it?”

          “No, we shouldn’t” she pleaded.

          “Come on, if you really love me you’ll do it.”

          “Well,  . . . I don’t know.”

          “Go ahead, just pick one.  That one right above your head.”

          As she reached up gingerly, he said, “Great going, Hon!  Now take a bite and give it to me.”  She did.

          After a while as the awareness of evil seeped into them, they knew they could no longer live there.  Together they walked out of the garden; God watched with great sadness as they left, knowing the tribulation ahead.

 

Revisiting the Abortion Issue

Although the question of abortion in the U.S. seemed settled in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, with conservatism gaining more visibility since the Trump election, the issue of abortion has again become a contentious issue.  It is posed as a Yes or No question and both sides are highly emotionally charged so it is difficult to engage in rational discussions of the issue.

Much of the objection to abortion revolves around the question of ‘when is the fetus to be considered a human being?’ . . . is it as soon as the egg and sperm come together? . . . or is it with the first detectable heartbeat? . . . or is it when the fetus is viable—able to survive on its own outside the mother’s womb?  Law and science alone can’t give a definitive answer.

Another important issue at the core of the debate is ‘who has the right to make the decision concerning the use of a woman’s body?’  The woman? . . . the medical profession? . . . the Church? . . . the government?  The answer to that seems obvious—it is the woman. 

If we give careful consideration to that question, we see it as being influenced by the long-standing patriarchal perspective—a system of society or government controlled by men—wherein women have no voice, and all aspects of their lives are under the control of men.    That attitude can still be seen in the unwillingness to allow women to make their own choices.

More than a yes or no answer to abortion is needed.  Rather, what is needed is a deeper respect for life in general . . . unprotected sex can yield babies and babies are more than just today’s inconvenience.  We are all part of the flow of life and babies are the future generation.  Seen in those terms, abortion should never be a frivolous matter.  Women, being the carrier of life, hold a heavy responsibility . . . yet there are circumstances that can justify a choice to abort. Girls need be educated to protect their life-giving privilege and only in dire circumstances choose to eliminate a developing life in their body—but it is and must be their right to choose.

Let me bring up a point involving males that also concerns the ‘taking of life’.  There is a commandment ‘Thou shall not kill’ . . . all of civilization agrees that killing is wrong.  Yet since the beginning of time there have been wars—and they are even glorified in many ways.  It is almost exclusively men who initiate war and men who engage in war.  The world, having developed under patriarchy, has made no outcry—until recently—that war is immoral. 

The point I make here is two-fold: 1) men have not been restricted by law or Church to not engage in the killing of war, they have always been free to choose how to use their bodies; and 2) under a patriarchal system women’s freedom had been controlled by men. Historically, their freedom of movement was curtailed (needing male approval); their freedom to be educated, to choose professions, to own property, to vote, was withheld etc. Slowly women have fought to be free of male control and make their own choices—the abortion issue is part of that fight.  

I want my position to be clear on this issue.  I oppose abortion as simply a way to ‘solve the problem’ of an unplanned pregnancy; I believe it is a moral issue and should be resorted to only in a real crisis, but I recognize that there are circumstances that justify it.  This is a decision that only the one directly concerned can make—as are all moral decisions.  This conflict is a gender-freedom issue.  The long-standing patriarchal control strives to take away woman’s authority in this very sensitive matter—we again and still fight for our freedom.  

I do believe there should be reasonable legal limits to the time allowed in which to abort and a limit to humane methods used, but ultimately the decision pro or con regarding a woman’s choice should be in the hands of the woman concerned.