• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Catherine Schmidt, Georgia State University

This is part III of a IV part series exploring popular culture depictions of Mary Magdalene.  In part I, we looked at a brief history of pre-Vatican II portrayals of Mary.  Part II discussed the history of Vatican II in relation to Mary and how the change in Church thinking did little to how Mary was portrayed in popular culture as seen in Lady Gaga’s music video “Judas.”  Part III will build on the post-Vatican II portrayals with the musical film Jesus Christ Superstar. 

In stark contrast to DeMille’s and Lady Gaga’s Mary is the Mary that is portrayed in Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s musical turned film Jesus Christ Superstar.  Unlike the other two Marys discussed, Webber and Rice’s Mary is not dressed in elaborate costumes.  As well, she is without makeup and her hair is plain.  The one similarity in dress is the jewelry she wears.  In Jesus Christ Superstar, the only differentiating feature from Mary to the other women is that she has both a necklace and earrings on during her two most prominent songs.  Another stark difference is that this Mary is actually more conservatively dressed compared to the other women in the cast.  Where some women are dressed showing plenty of skin (as can be expected for a film made in the 1970s), Mary is dressed in a long tunic.  However, just because she is dressed more conservatively—a term I will use loosely since Mary’s dress is low-cut—does not mean her character is no longer part of the ancient “mud-slinging job.” 

Jesus Christ Superstar was first produced as an album in 1970 just after the Second Vatican Council.  One year later it came to Broadway and received a great reception.  In 1973 it was made into a film and, thus, allowed more than just those able to make it to either New York or London (where it was also now being performed) to see the production.[1]  The musical continues to be produced all over the world and the film has been re-adapted two times, with a third scheduled for release in 2014.[2]  Though the writing of the musical comes at the heels of Vatican II, Webber and Rice apparently did not get the memo about Mary.  Once again, Mary is confused with other women in the Bible and she is still represented as a prostitute.  During the song “What’s the Buzz” Mary starts to wash Jesus’ head and feet with oils.  Then, Judas interrupts the song with his own titled “Strange Thing Mystifying.”  He does not explicitly call Mary a prostitute, but it can been easily inferred when Judas sings “…a man like you can waste his time on women of her kind…” and later “it’s not that I object to her profession, but she doesn’t fit in well with what you teach and say.”  Jesus responds by defending Mary and verbally throws stones at Judas.  He screams/sings “If your slate is clean, then you can throw stones.   If your slate is not, then leave her alone!”  In this one scene, Mary has been combined with three different women in the New Testament, none of which are actually Mary Magdalene.  Mary washing Jesus occurs a second time (possibly to mirror the two separate times different women anoint Jesus’ feet in the New Testament) during her song “Everything’s Alright.”  In this song, Mary tries to calm and seduce Jesus.  Her hands are strategically placed throughout the song to show the intimacy she has for Jesus.  Yet again, Judas interrupts Mary anointing Jesus arguing that the money used for the ointment could have been used to feed the poor (a scene lifted straight from John 12:1-8, except that the Mary in these verses was actually Mary of Bethany and not Mary Magdalene). 

In Mary’s most famous song in the musical, “I Don’t Know How to Love Him,” the audience learns more about her past.  Unlike The King of Kings in which Judas was her best client or “Judas” in which she is in love with Judas, in Jesus Christ Superstar Mary is in love with Jesus himself.  She laments “I don’t know how to take this.   I don’t see why he moves me.   He’s a man.  He’s just a man.   And I’ve had so many men before in very many ways.   He’s just one more.”  Later in the song she admits that she would not know how to respond if he loved her back.  She would be “lost,” “frightened,” and she would “turn [her] head” despite that she “want[s] him so” and “love[s] him so.”  It has been argued that this song is “no distanced reverence for a demi-god but rather a distressed, emotional entanglement with a fellow human-being.”[3]  By having Mary love Jesus as any woman may love a man, the story becomes more relatable to the audience.  Add Judas, who believes they are wrong for each other and should not be seen together, and it becomes a soap opera of biblical times. 

DeMille was not the only director that looked at popular Christian art and legends for inspiration.  Webber and Rice relied heavily on “conflated and erroneous biblical interpretations,” as well as prevalent art and legends.[4]  In fact, the scene of the last supper, the disciples and Jesus make a point of copying the body positions in Leonardo Di Vinci’s famous masterpiece.  The art that is imitated into the film reinforces the concepts they depict to the audience and, unfortunately, many in the audience believe the images are accurate and not fabrications of the artists’ minds.  If Mary is continually portrayed as a prostitute, audiences will believe she was one, even if academia states otherwise.  Film, especially, has great power in reinforcing the pre-conceived notions of Mary’s image.  As well, what the audience sees in film (especially if the same image is repeated in different films) often over-shadows people’s own interpretations of people and events represented in a film.[5] 

The ending to Jesus Christ Superstar is quite unsettling.  After the death of Jesus, there is no resurrection scene.  The movie ends with the cast packing up the set and loading onto the bus the movie opened with.  With no resurrection scene, Mary is unable to be the first to see the risen Jesus, and thus, unable to be the first to spread the message of his resurrection.  The only Mary the audience is aware of in this musical/film is that of a prostitute in love with Jesus.  

Bart Ehrman argues that because Mary was the first to witness and proclaim the resurrection, she started Christianity.  He stated that if the resurrection did historically happen[6], Mary is far more important than how she is depicted currently (and historically).  His argument is based on the idea that: 

The Christian religion is founded on the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead.  And it appears virtually certain that it was Mary Magdalene of all people, an otherwise unknown Galilean Jewish woman of means, who first propounded this belief.  It is not at all farfetched to claim that Mary was the founder of Christianity.[7]

Had it not been for Mary, Christianity may never have started, according to this argument.  Christianity needed someone to announce that Jesus had risen.  And since she was the first to make such an announcement, Mary started Christianity.[8]  By omitting this scene in Jesus Christ Superstar, Mary’s importance vanishes, and she is just another woman around Jesus. 

We will finish this series with Part IV of that will discuss The Da Vinci Code and concluding remarks.  According toThe Da Vinci Code, Mary knew how to love Jesus.

 ***************

Author’s Bio

Catherine Schmidt is an associate editor of Religion Nerd.  Catherine earned her BA in Religious Studies at Arizona State University (2005) and her MA in Religious Studies at Georgia State University (2012).  She has presented her work at academic conferences in the local, regional, and national level.  Catherine’s interest range include: religion and popular culture, women and religion, Mary Magdalene, and early Christian history.  She hopes in the future to pursue her PhD where she can combine her many interests. 

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Mary E. Hunt, Religion Dispatches

When it comes to the Vatican’s crackdown on women religious, I believe it’s time to declare that for the purpose of this struggle: we are all nuns.

The mandate by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to reform the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) via the appointment of an Archbishop Delegate to bring the nuns back in line—below and behind the bishops—has outraged those who respect its rich legacy.

If you can spell Catholic, you are probably asking: how dare they go after 57,000 dedicated women whose median age is well over 70 and who work tirelessly for a more just world? How dare the very men who preside over a Church in utter disgrace due to sexual misconduct and cover-ups by bishops try to distract from their own problems by creating new ones for women religious?

While this story is focused on nuns, it doesn’t stop there. Flowery medieval rhetoric by the Vatican about the nuns’ “special place in the Church,” and the fiction that religious women have “full participation in all aspects of the Church’s life” (while ordination is still for men only—come on!) make the dictum especially pernicious. 

But it’s really about all of the laity, especially women, who see the world in terms of needs we can fulfill, not power we can hold; of radical equality, not hierarchy; of the many, not the few.

Delicate Souls

So, what happened?

Apparently the straw that broke the camel’s back was the collaboration of the Catholic social justice lobby NETWORK, founded forty years ago by 47 nuns from two dozen communities, and the Catholic Hospital Association in supporting the Obama health care plan.

More progressive feminist Catholics, myself included, rued the fact that the plan did not cover the full spectrum of reproductive health care—including abortion. Nevertheless, the pragmatic nuns offered bona fide Catholic support for the proposal as written, over and against the US bishops who, to this writing, continue to oppose the legislation because it includes coverage for contraception without enough exemptions to satisfy them.

The fact that President Barack Obama and members of Congress took the nuns to be normatively Catholic—or at least as Catholic as the bishops—was just more than the delicate souls in Rome could stand.

This latest mandate to reform the LCWR—indeed to put it out of business—has been in the works for years. In a process that began in 2008, the “doctrinal assessment,” as it is known, was aimed at investigating the “serious doctrinal problems which affect many in Consecrated Life.” In the face of wars in several parts of the world, ecological crises throughout the planet, and severe economic injustice, it is morally embarrassing that the Vatican chooses to spend its time on such trivia. But given that the result is aimed at some of the very people whose lives are dedicated to peace making, Earth enhancement, and economic sharing, it is worth clarifying what is at stake.

The crux of the matter, as it were, is that most of the nuns, like many Catholics, have matured beyond the Vatican’s imaginings. The notion that postmodern Catholics assent to “the doctrine of the faith that has been revealed by God in Jesus Christ, presented in written form in the divinely inspired Scriptures, and handed on in the Apostolic Tradition under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium,” (or, simply, the fathers know best) is simply ludicrous. As one observer asked me, “What Bible do they read?”

The truth is, most Catholics no longer look to Rome for guidance on our personal lives, or anyone else’s. Nor do we live within the narrow confines of a cultic Christianity, or, as women, accept male leadership and priestly ministry as if theirs were God-given and ours were not. We appreciate the complexity of these matters and strive to create forums in which to listen, discuss, discern, and pray.

In short, our ways of being are as different from the Vatican’s as are our views.

The Vatican knows this, is not pleased, but can’t do much about it. It is trying to put LCWR in the untenable position of having its every conference, publication, and public utterance subject to episcopal veto. The real aim, in my reading of the situation, is to replace LCWR with the Council of Major Superiors of Women (CMSW), a group of conservative, habit-wearing, bishop-obeying nuns that Rome has been cultivating all along. That group’s blueprint for religious life is expressed in The Foundations of Religious Life: Revisiting the Vision, a volume that reads like Vatican officials wrote it. Perhaps they did. Although what is more disturbing is that the Vatican has set women up against one another. Conservative women religious collaborated on the Apostolic Visitation and will be appointed to the Archbishop Delegate’s Advisory Team.

The effort to rein in LCWR is meant as much to scare the rest of us into line as to corral the nuns. I can say with confidence that it won’t work.

Roman Catholic Church history is unfolding before our eyes. The difference these days is that tactics Rome employs are transparent. Just as Archbishop William E. Lori was recently rewarded for his work on contraception and “religious liberty” by being named bishop of Baltimore (and will likely become a cardinal soon) we can predict that Archbishop Delegate Peter Sartain of Seattle who is doing this work on behalf of Rome has already had his head measured for a new hat.

Catholics schooled in the ways of justice—largely by the nuns—recoil at the power play this mandate represents. Three things are especially repugnant. First, there is no real discussion. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal William Levada asserts that “the first step in the implementation of the findings” is a personal meeting “in a spirit of mutual respect and collaboration.” This is rather fanciful since the LCWR leaders who received the document were not at all sure it was coming. They went to Rome with the intention of engaging in dialogue, not being presented with a fait accompli. 

Second, this move seems like an effort to cut off the head of lay people in the Church, beginning with the nuns. The Vatican acknowledges, “the influence the LCWR exercises on religious Congregations in other parts of the world.” Add to that its political influence in the US and the hydra that is LCWR was ripe for beheading.

I insist on the larger lay component of this chapter in church history because groups like Women-Church Convergence and Catholic Organizations for Renewal represent far more progressive theo-politics than LCWR. Because those groups and others like them are canonically independent of the Vatican they simply can’t be touched, but they are no less Catholic. LCWR was punished for associating with such groups, including Women’s Ordination Conference, New Ways Ministry, and others of “radical feminism” of my intimate acquaintance. Efforts to squelch LCWR are simultaneously efforts to discredit those groups.

And finally, there’s the current “war on women,” with Catholic bishops leading the charge. In the U.S., it is manifest in the skirmishes around reproductive rights. Young and poor women suffer greatly, but all women are implicated in these policy conflicts. Around the world, we find the Vatican successfully making alliances with other religious fundamentalists to prevent UN-based consensus on women’s reproductive health care. Casualties are many among poor and young women, the very ones the nuns would protect. So it is no surprise that the same bellicose ways operate within the kyriarchal church itself.

The question is how to stop the cycle of violence, how to refuse to cooperate in structures that oppress, how to “engage impasse” as some of the most creative nuns have tried to do.

LCWR will find its way with a great deal of support and solidarity from the rest of us lay Catholics and those clergymen who are able to distance themselves from the hierarchy. Likewise if the Apostolic Visitation results are similar to the LCWR debacle, I predict that the individual communities will also figure out strategies for moving forward.

I am less sure that the Vatican will recover.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Catherine Schmidt, Georgia State University

In part one of this series, we looked at how Mary Magdalene was depicted in popular culture prior to Vatican II. This second installment will discuss both the history of Vatican II in relation to Mary and Lady Gaga’s interpretation of Mary in her music video for her son “Judas”. 

In the 1960s the Catholic Church held a council to essentially modernize the Catholic Church. This was the Second Vatican Council, also known as Vatican II. One of the many things done was the changing of the suggested readings for Mary’s saint day. No longer did the readings include the Biblical verses that Pope Gregory I attributed to Mary, making her a prostitute in the eyes of the church. The verses suggested would now be verses to highlight her greatest biblical achievement: being the first to see the resurrected Jesus. After almost fourteen hundred years, Mary would no longer be thought of as a prostitute, sinner, or repentant whore, right? Unfortunately, not quite. Just because her designation on a calendar was changed by the Catholic Church, it did not change fourteen hundred years of thinking.  Due to all the depictions of Mary as a prostitute in pieces of art, theater, novels, sermons, and film, the “error was so firmly entrenched in Western thought”[1] and it would take more than an official change in Catholic Church thinking to change Mary’s reputation.  According to some scholars, even after Vatican II, many Catholics were unaware, until The Da Vinci Code in 2003, that Mary was not a prostitute. Since American popular culture continued to portray her as such, the views of her stayed the same in the public eye.[2] Even after the novel and film The Da Vinci Code, Mary continues to be portrayed as a prostitute. Mary’s depiction in The Da Vinci Code will be discussed in Part 4 of this series. 

On May 5, 2011, popular culture icon Lady Gaga released the music video for her song “Judas” from her album Born this Way. In the music video, Lady Gaga plays the role of a modern day Mary who is a member of a motorcycle gang. Though Lady Gaga states she is a Catholic, the way she represents Mary both lyrically and visually in the video shows that she does not pay close attention to scripture. As with pre-Vatican II artistic renderings, Lady Gaga’s Mary is still portrayed as a “fame hooker, prostitute, [and] wench.”[3] Though unlike The King of Kings (see Part 1 of 4) in which Judas is only Mary’s favorite client, the lyrics and music video for the song argue that Mary was in love with Judas with the chorus repeating the line “I’m in love with Judas, Judas!” 

Throughout the music video, Lady Gaga’s Mary is dressed very provocatively, which can be expected from something produced by Lady Gaga.  Her Mary goes through several different costume changes.  There are three interesting outfits that I will comment on.  The first is the very first image we see of Lady Gaga as Mary.  In the opening scene of the video, Mary is riding on the back of a motorcycle holding on to Jesus.  While the other disciples have their names written on the back of their leather jackets, the viewer knows this is Jesus because of his crown of golden thorns he is wearing.  The visual is reinforced with the lyrics “a king with no crown, king with no crown.”  Mary, likewise, has a crown but it is made of jewels.  Here, Lady Gaga is suggesting that Mary is Jesus’ queen. The second interesting outfit is from one of the many dancing scenes in the video. The outfit is a red bikini (the bikini not being the unusual aspect of a Lady Gaga video) with gold crosses on the breasts. Attached to the lower portion of the bikini is a train. This train brings back images of Mary’s cape from the opening scenes in The King of Kings. In an online article responding to the music video, Ed Masley stated: 

This isn’t the first time an artist has turned to the Bible for metaphors, of course.  But [Lady] Gaga dances in her underwear, so it probably seems more sacrilegious than when someone like Bob Dylan does it, even though the central theme of both the lyrics and the video is humanity’s inner struggle to choose virtue over vice, as represented here by Jesus over Judas.[4] 

Lady Gaga’s last outfit of the video has her dressed in a large, elaborate white gown.  She is again suggesting that Mary is the bride of Jesus by wearing what looks like a wedding dress.  As well, Lady Gaga, like Pope Gregory I, combines the many women of the New Testament in her music video into one Mary.  Song lyrics include “I wash his feet with my hair if he needs” and there is a scene where Mary washes Jesus’ feet—as well as Judas’ which is unique to Lady Gaga.  Something that is not depicted incorrectly in The King of Kings, but is in this music video, is Mary being stoned at the very end of the video (in reference to the unnamed sinful woman that Jesus saves from being stoned.  In Gaga’s video, Jesus does not arrive in time to save this woman).  

It is as if Vatican II never happened in Lady Gaga’s world.  Mary is still confused with other women in the New Testament.  To go even further, Lady Gaga’s Mary, unlike many other depictions of Mary, is not the repentant sinner.  At one point in the song she sings “in the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance.  Fame hooker, prostitute, wench” and while “Jesus is [her] virtue.  Judas is the demon [she] clings to.”  Mary has not been freed of her demons by Jesus nor is she remorseful of her past.  Lady Gaga’s video/lyrical depiction of Mary consequently allows the misrepresentation and “mud-slinging job” to live on for another generation. Yet another generation, even after the Catholic Church no longer supports the same opinion officially, sees Mary portrayed this way and believes it is true. “Seeing engages us in the activity of the transmission of knowledge. Knowledge is power. Images have power, and an essential part of that power is their ability to communicate authority and reality.”[5]  Since the Mary in Lady Gaga’s video is what audiences expect Mary to be (that is confused with other women in the New Testament, and not dressed in a bikini) it becomes their reality of what Mary should be. 

Lady Gaga’s representation of Mary is not that of a powerful woman. The video suggests that her stamp in history is that of a whore in love with both Jesus and Judas. Varying interpretations of Mary are not only due to Pope Gregory I’s sermon, but also the lack of canonical information on her. Ingrid Maisch argued that many interpreters of Mary are “eager to describe her significance, but they believe that the New Testament evidence yields too little information; hence the evidence is ‘enhanced’ by making the connection to other women…The confused picture is ‘used’ as a means of pursuing various ends.”[6] Mary continues to be marginalized and demeaned even forty-two years after Vatican II. 

Stay tuned for Part 3 of the 4 part article that will build even further the myth of Mary’s reputation. Jesus Christ Superstar will be discussed that adds an extra element of Mary’s sexual love of Jesus.

****************

Author’s Bio

Catherine Schmidt is an associate editor of Religion Nerd.  Catherine earned her BA in Religious Studies at Arizona State University (2005) and her MA in Religious Studies at Georgia State University (2012).  She has presented her work at academic conferences in the local, regional, and national level.  Catherine’s interest range include: religion and popular culture, women and religion, Mary Magdalene, and early Christian history.  She hopes in the future to pursue her PhD where she can combine her many interests. 

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Catherine Schmidt, Georgia State University 

There is something about Mary…Magdalene that is.  She is one of the few New Testament women (or even characters for that matter) that continues to fascinate the public; and yet, we know so very little about her.  Because we know so little, it leads some people to create stories of what they think she was like.  Depending on the time and place, she is different things for different people.  Sometimes she is a repentant whore while other times she is the lover—or even wife—of Jesus Christ.  

Many of these depictions of Mary Magdalene actually diminish her memory.  Mary, according to leading feminist scholar Rosemary Radford Ruether, was an unfortunate recipient of a “mud-slinging job” in order for her authority to be questioned by the early Catholic Church.[1]  The Catholic Church could then use Mary as an excuse to keep women from power.  The American popular culture takes this marginalization and runs with it.  Numerous forms of popular media portray Mary in a diminished role and so it is harder to correct the minds of the public.  

According to Richard Santana and Gregory Erickson, America is a “biblical” culture that does not actually read the Bible.  They argued that American popular culture and popular religion have been heavily influenced and impacted by religiously themed books—as well as anything else visual.[2]  This article is part of a four part series that will examine how Mary’s role is diminished within popular culture through her sexuality, and how that image then affects women’s role in Christianity.  

Part I will discuss pre-Vatican II portrayals as demonstrated in Cecil B. DeMille’s 1927 silent film The King of Kings, part II will provide background to post-Vatican II depictions using Lady Gaga’s 2011 music video for her song “Judas” as an example.  Part III will expand further on Mary’s reputation with Norman Jewison’s 1973 Jesus Christ Superstar based on the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, and, lastly, part IV will conclude the series with Ron Howard’s 2006 film The Da Vinci Code based on Dan Brown’s book by the same name. 

As briefly discussed above, according to Ruether, women in Christianity, not just Mary, were marginalized in order for their power to be removed.  She argued: 

Occasionally a woman in the tradition stands out as so powerful and so central that she can neither be silenced or sanitized.  Here the patriarchal censure introduces what might be called a “mud-slinging job” to displace them from authority and dignity…The Christian tradition marginalized Mary Magdalene by turning her into a repentant prostitute, thus marginalizing her from her position as leading female apostle and first witness of the resurrection, commissioned to bring the good news back to the male disciples who had fled the scene and were trembling in the upper room.[3]

Diminishing Mary’s role allowed men to have complete control over the Catholic Church as well as over women.  Women were not allowed to hold a position that would have her above a man.  The Catholic Church, to this day, does not allow the ordination of women based primarily on the belief that Jesus’ disciples were all men.[4]  It is interesting to note, however, that several non-canonical gospels show that Jesus possibly had female disciples.  If women in the canonical gospels were portrayed as weak and unbelieving sinners, then the Catholic Church (i.e. men) could treat all women as such.  Even after other non-canonical texts have been found to show that women were not always seen as frail, doubting, and adulterous and previous distortions of Mary’s image by the Catholic Church reversed, Mary has continued to be portrayed by popular media in a way that marginalizes her.  

There has been some popular media, such as the book and movie The Da Vinci Code, that attempts to correct the idea that Mary was just a prostitute, but even when she is not portrayed as such, the way she is portrayed still marginalizes her, just in a different way. This will be discussed in the fourth installment of the article.  These alternative portrayals of Mary are deemed inaccurate and unorthodox by those in power within the Catholic Church, and thus, the misinterpretation of Mary as a prostitute or sinful woman is harder to prove erroneous in the minds of the public, both Christian and non-Christian.  

If one of the most important woman in Christianity can be made weak and unimportant, then women can continue to be oppressed, and verses such as 1 Timothy 2:12 (which states that women must be silent in the church) can continue to be used as basis to keep women out of power.  James Carroll argued that the early Church Fathers wanted to “disempower the figure of Mary Magdalene, so that her succeeding sisters in the church would not compete with men for power” and had “the impulse to discredit women generally.  This was most efficiently done by reducing them to their sexuality.”[5]  Reducing Mary to her sexuality affected not only her memory, but how women have been treated throughout Christian history.           

When Cecil B. DeMille’s The King of Kings was released in 1927, it was not the first time in the short history of filmmaking that Mary was depicted on the silver screen.  The King of Kings was the ninth movie to portray Mary, however, this movie continues, even to this day, to be “one of the most popular and influential movies ever made” due to its continued popularity worldwide.[6]  At the very beginning of the silent film, there is a short note from DeMille stating: “He Himself, commanded that His message be carried to the uttermost parts of the earth.  May this portrayal play a reverent part in the spirit of that great command.”  From this statement it is clear that DeMille wanted to make a film about the story of Jesus in order to, at some level, evangelize.  However, that does not mean that the film was completely accurate.  DeMille liberally quotes the Bible throughout the film.  Bible verses are out of order, out of context, paraphrased, and said by people who did not actually say them.  As well, DeMille added material to what is not found in the canonical gospels.  It has been argued that DeMille did this for two reasons: “to make money and to make the narrative about Jesus work on the screen.  In doing so, DeMille made Jesus interesting and thereby distorted the original gospel narratives, voiding the rhetorical and theological purposes of the gospel accounts of Jesus.”[7]  And of course, if the biography of Jesus is uninteresting based solely on the canonical gospels, Mary’s would be even less interesting.  “The sparse information in the New Testament about Mary of Magdala is not adequate for a biography, and thus not for a biographical novel either.  Anyone who attempts the latter therefore has recourse to legends and creative fantasies.”[8]  How would one depict a woman who, according to the gospel of Luke, had seven demons cast out of her?  By making her a prostitute and associating the seven demons with the seven deadly sins, according to DeMille.  

When it was first shown in theaters, the movie was praised for accurately portraying the story of Jesus.  According to Diane Apostolos-Cappadona: 

The seeing of this film had an indelible impact on the minds of thousands of young people who saw it throughout the 1920s and 1930s.  Ask them to describe Mary Magdalene, and see if you don’t recognize Jacqueline Logan—bad girl turned saint!  After all, seeing is believing.[9]

Since the film, like many others, relied heavily on previous depictions of Jesus and Mary in art, which often had her wearing little-to-no clothing with ornate jewelry and extravagant hairstyles,[10]  DeMille’s Mary was what the audience expected. 

In The King of Kings, there are three scenes in which Mary is prominent that I will focus on.  The first scene is the opening scene of the movie, which opens up at the elaborate home of Mary.  She is cast as a successful prostitute surrounded by what appear to be important people of the community; this is affirmed when she, later in the scene, asks for her zebras that were gifts from a Nubian King.  She has multiple servants that will do whatever she commands, including one that keeps her cool her with a large, feathered fan.  She is surrounded by musicians, exotic animals, and food to show off her opulence.  Mary is dressed in an outfit which for the 1920s was very provocative and revealing.  One could argue that this outfit could rival only Princess Leia in Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi.  As if the gold bra were not enough, Mary sports heavy makeup, has her hair braided elaborately, and wears much jewelry to drive home the point to the 1920s audience that she is a woman of sin.  The viewer learns that Mary’s favorite customer, Judas, has been missing for several days.  Mary demands to know where he is (and who his new lover is) and learns that he is with “a Carpenter from Nazareth.”  She decides to go to this carpenter and bring her best client back.  In a sign of her great importance, she goes off in a Zebra-drawn chariot.  At this point the scene cuts to Jesus performing miracles and the twelve disciples, along with Jesus’ mother Mary, are introduced.  Mary the Mother is dressed in polar opposite of what Mary Magdalene is dressed in.  Jesus’ mother is literally dressed from head to toe in cloth.  Women in this film are dressed either as Mary Magdalene at the beginning scene—as a prostitute—or like Mary the Mother—as a virginal woman.  This portrays to the audience that women can be only whores or virgins with no middle ground.  

Mary arrives at the home Jesus is in with an air of prominence around her.  She commands beggars away and requires her servants to lay a carpet down on the ground so that she does not have to walk in the dirt.  She enters the home and sees her former client Judas, now one of the twelve disciples.  Mary struts over to Jesus with the intention of demanding Judas to return to her, but as soon as she looks into the eyes of Jesus she is transformed from prostitute to penitent sinner.  She becomes very aware that what she had been doing was against everything Jesus teaches.  Jesus then casts out seven demons from Mary, which DeMille chooses to be the seven deadly sins (he even modifies a Bible verse to make it seem like the demons cast out of her were the seven deadly sins).  Once the demons are cast out of Mary, she looks down on herself and is ashamed.  She covers herself up with her cape.  After this scene, she dresses in a manner similar to Mary the Mother.  This again signals to the audience that women are either virginal or prostitutes, with no other options.  

The final scene of importance that includes Mary, is the second to last scene in the film.  This is the resurrection scene and the only color scene in an otherwise black and white film.  Here Jesus first appears to Mary and commands her to tell the others that he has risen.  It is unclear from the next scene if Mary is actually successful in doing as commanded.  Ten of the now eleven disciples are in a room looking sad and forlorn (Thomas enters the room only after Jesus has appeared).  Had Mary been successful, would not the disciples be waiting in anticipation for Jesus to come back?  Or, did they not believe her because she was a mere woman? 

Viewers saw the way DeMille depicted Mary as real or true due to her being depicted as they believed she should be.  Jacqueline Logan as Mary confirmed what the audience already thought Mary should look and act like from church sermons, Bible studies, and Sunday school.[11] DeMille himself was heavily influenced by the pictures in his family Bible, illustrated by James Tissot (1836-1902), as well as the Biblical art of GustaveDoré (1832-83).[12]  These depictions show Mary as a prostitute.  As it is well-known, however, Mary as a prostitute did not start with these nineteenth-century artists.  In a 591 sermon, Pope Gregory I combined Mary Magdalene, several unnamed women, and Mary of Bethany (who washed Jesus’ feet) and stated that all the women were actually just one: Mary Magdalene.  By doing such an act, Mary’s greatest claim to fame (according to the canonical gospels) of being the first to witness and announce the resurrection is changed to her repenting her sexual and/or evil ways.[13]  Mary was then, for more than a millennium after Pope Gregory I’s sermon, “unjustly condemned for something she never did, and denied her rightful place in Church history, while Paul has been exonerated for his own sins and held up as a model for all.”[14]  Mary goes from a faithful follower and supporter of Jesus who is worthy enough to be the first to see him risen to repentant whore and is condemned for that.  Yet Paul, a male, who admits to persecuting and killing Christians, is considered an exemplary Christian.  Pope Gregory I’s sermon was the “mud-slinging job” Ruether is alluding to.  By combining the women, “whether intentionally or not, he changed the Christian world’s attitude toward Mary Magdalene, women, and sexuality for centuries to come.”[15]  From that point on, Mary would be defined by her sexuality, and not for being an important disciple (and if one takes into account the non-canonical texts she was also a confidant of Jesus) that was the first to see Christ’s resurrection.[16]  The audience of The King of Kings will likely remember the opening scene Mary over the closing scene Mary because that is the Mary they have been raised to know because of Pope Gregory I’s “mud-slinging job.” 

We will continue to build on the myth of Mary’s reputation in the next segment and see how early film depictions of Mary—such as The King of Kings—contributed to how she has been  perceived in subsequent portrayals.

************************

Author’s Bio

Catherine Schmidt is an associate editor of Religion Nerd.  Catherine earned her BA in Religious Studies at Arizona State University (2005) and her MA in Religious Studies at Georgia State University (2012).  She has presented her work at academic conferences in the local, regional, and national level.  Catherine’s interest range include: religion and popular culture, women and religion, Mary Magdalene, and early Christian history.  She hopes in the future to pursue her PhD where she can combine her many interests. 

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Maureen Dempsey, RNC-OB

Just what exactly is a slut?  According to Rush Limbaugh, because Sandra Fluke thinks that all insurance providers – even those with a religious objection – should provide coverage for contraception, she is a slut.  “She wants us to pay her for having sex,” Mr. Limbaugh claimed, “what does that make her?  A slut, right?  A prostitute.”  To Mr. Limbaugh the word slut signifies a bad woman – a woman with no value.  And sexual activity is the criterion that Mr. Limbaugh is using to determine value.  Does she have sex? Yes?  Then she is bad.  No sex?  Then she is good.  

The word slut has always signified a woman of low value in the English language.  However, the definition has narrowed over the years.  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a massive etymological work that not only defines words, but also provides examples of early uses of words.  The OED defines slut in two distinct ways: “as a woman of dirty, slovenly, or untidy habits or appearance,” or “a woman of a low or loose character; a hussy.”Historically, a woman could be judged a slut by either her untidiness or her sexuality. Both definitions of the word slut – untidy woman or sexual woman – imply a system in which a woman’s worth is determined by her potential value (either as a housekeeper or as a wife) to a man.  

When a man uses the word slut, he is evoking a world in which women are not full citizens.  He is declaring his power. He is demarcating his territory.  He is asserting that he has the privilege to determine the worth of that woman.  Why is Mr. Limbaugh so threatened by Sandra Fluke that he must publicly disparage her?  Because prescription contraception shifts the power away from men by temporally moving the decision to use birth control away from the sex act.  This is important because when the use of birth control has to be negotiated at the moment just before the sex act, the likelihood that it will be used goes down. 

The use of a condom requires a man’s consent.  Women can use prescription contraception without a man’s consent.  This simple fact is at the heart of the current hullabaloo over contraception.  It is the real reason that no women were allowed to testify in the congressional hearing on birth control.  It also inspired the attempt to require a trans-vaginal ultrasound before abortion.  

In the last few weeks, the question of contraception coverage has been portrayed as a religious issue, a financial issue, and a moral issue.  But the real issues here are power and impotence.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

Maureen Dempsey, RNC-OB

Friday morning, on the Huffington Post, the first story to catch my eye was this: “David Albo, Virginia Lawmaker, Says Wife Wouldn’t Have Sex Because Of Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill.”  As I clicked on the headline, I thought, this is going to be good.  And the gentleman from Fairfax didn’t disappoint me.  I watched a three-minute video of Mr. Albo describing to his fellow delegates how he tried to seduce his wife with a combination of red wine and the Redskins on big screen television.  They were on the sofa, he was snuggling up to her while changing the channel, things were heating up…when he inadvertently stopped on MSNBC and saw his name plastered across the 46-inch screen and heard his colleague, David Englin, repeatedly using the term “trans-vaginal.”  After a few minutes of this, his wife excused herself and went to bed alone. 

Mr. Albo obviously went to some effort to plan the description of this failed seduction.  He set the stage visually.  At an appropriate time in the story, he played some sexy music.  However, when the moment came for him to describe what he and his wife saw and heard on the TV, his story telling technique fell apart.  He couldn’t bring himself to say the word, “trans-vaginal.”  He got part of the word out and then the rest of the sentence dissolved into incoherent gibberish.  “Trans-V this and Trans-V that,” he said next, using a guttural tone of voice – the kind of voice people use when they think they’re saying something dirty.  

Now I was confused.  What had turned off Mr. Albo’s wife?  Originally, I had thought it was her solidarity with other women – her disgust at the thought that the state might require this unnecessary, uncomfortable, and invasive procedure.  But now I wondered if she wasn’t just disgusted at the blatant use of the word, “vagina.”  I decided to see if I could find any other information about this story online.  The first retelling of the story I found, at www.dailycaller.com, referred to “the unfortunately named, ‘trans-vaginal ultrasound.’”  Apparently the Albos aren’t the only people uncomfortable with the word vagina. 

Why is vagina so hard to say?  Why is it “unfortunate” to use the term vaginal to describe a medical procedure that occurs in the vagina?  Why does the gentleman from Fairfax use a special, bawdy tone of voice when he refers to “trans-V this and trans-V that?”  Why is this story even funny?  I have a theory.  I do not know Mr. Albo personally.  But he and I attended high school in Virginia at roughly the same time.  I think I knew guys like him.  A smart guy, a funny guy, a mostly proper guy.  He couldn’t say vagina because what he was really talking about was pussy.  He was telling a story – an ironic story, a bawdy story – about how he didn’t get any pussy because of his involvement in some notorious pussy-related legislation.   

This is important because when men who can’t say the word, “vagina,” get together with other likeminded men to discuss contraception, the discussion ends up being about sex, about pussy, rather than about women’s health.  I encourage all men, but particularly those involved in the legislative process, to practice saying the word, “vagina,” every day.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Heather Abraham

Two years ago, on New Year’s Eve morning, I boarded a MARTA train at 7AM and began my journey to an office job in downtown Atlanta.  Before the train reached the first stop, an inebriated man approached me and grabbed both of my breasts.  All the while repeatedly screaming, “Mamasita!”  I punched the man in the forehead, knocked him to the ground, stepped over his body, exited the train car, and entered another.  For the remainder of the trip, I sat and reflected on the strange way I was ending the year and the robotic manner in which I reacted to my attacker. 

Twenty minutes later, I exited the train at the Five Points Station and found myself in the middle of a freak show; Peachtree Road was in the chaotic process of transforming itself for the New Year’s Eve celebration and Peach drop.  As I walked past the myriad of vendors setting up for the event, I was treated to dozens of off color comments and a few “men” who thought it appropriate to attempt physical contact.  By the time I reached the front of my office building, I had fought off several perverts. 

Thankful to have reached my destination, I entered the revolving doors of my office building only to be ripped backwards onto the street.  Startled, I found myself in a vice like grip of a mystery predator.  Before I could react, the security of my building ran to my rescue and beat the man from me.  He escaped down the street and I shakily continued on to my office—desperate for a moment of silence and a hot cup of coffee.  After the customary office greetings, I retreated to my office where I sat sipping a steaming cup of Joe and reflected, again, on the bizarre events of the last day 2009. 

Thirty minutes later, I was summoned by security to return to the scene of the attack.  The predator had been captured shortly after he pulled me from the revolving doors.  He was found by the police and the security from my building, “dry humping” another startled woman up against a nearby office building.  He had attacked five unsuspecting women that morning, all before 8AM.  I spent the next half hour meeting the other women he had attacked, filling out complaint forms, and talking to the police. 

Two years have passed and on each anniversary, I remember the bizarre morning of sexual harassment and physical assault as I sip my coffee from the safety of my home. 

I also remember that the events of that day sparked a major change in my life.  Already disillusioned with a dead-end job and having reached a saturation point with the seediness of MARTA and the dangerous characters I routinely encountered on my daily journey, I began to dream of quitting the rat race.  I quickly came to recognize the New Year’s Eve predators as a wakeup call—a sign that I had chosen the wrong fork in the road. 

A few weeks later, I got a second sign.  One that left me reeling from an odious sensory assault. 

The offensive, albeit, illuminating event occurred during a Friday evening ride home on the MARTA train.  Entering just as the doors closed, I was delighted to find a vacant seat and gratefully settled in for the ride.  Within moments, I realized something dreadful had happened on the train, as the unmistakable and overpowering smell of excrement enveloped me.  My eyes darted around the train looking for the source.  Within seconds, I had found it.  Sitting beside my seat was a McDonald’s bag that someone had apparently used as a toilet!  Overcome with nausea and the horrifying reality of riding alongside a bag of excrement, I frantically dove out of the train at the next stop. 

Thankfully, I had the weekend to reflect on this most recent of bizarre events.  My mind bounced around like a ball in a pinball machine.  Maybe it was just a bag of excrement that, at random, ended up beside an empty seat that I randomly chose?  Or, was the universe speaking to me?  Believe me; sitting next to a bag of shit will make you rethink your whole life.  I couldn’t shake the feeling that the offensive bag was warning me about my future.  Or, was it chastising me for the choices I had made?

Earlier in 2009, I had graduated from Georgia State University with a master’s degree in religious studies.  Unfortunately, the job market for those with religious studies degrees is extremely limited.  After months of searching, I finally admitted defeat and took a dead-end boring job that left me craving intellectual stimulation.  After five months of mind numbing work, I literally and metaphorically found myself riding home with a bag of shit for a companion. 

I needed to make some changes. 

In a strange way, Religion Nerd is the product of both the sexual assaults and my offensive train companion.  These events made me reflect on the choices I had made and provided me with a clear understanding of what I did not want in my life.  My future needed to be part of a conversation within the discipline I love so much. 

Within a few weeks, I had quit my job and signed up for a class with Atlanta writer and blogger, Hollis Gillespie.  Utilizing the information I obtained from Hollis’ class, “Atlanta’s Most Popular Blogging Workshop,” and the creative computer talents of my husband, Teo, Religion Nerd began to take shape.  On March 28^th 2010, ReligionNerd.com became a reality.     

So, what is the moral of this story?  Sometimes adversity inspires you to think outside the box and sometimes a bag of shit is a sign of good things to come.  

To all Religion Nerd readers and contributors, I thank you for your support and I wish you a fabulous New Year!

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Michael Vicente Perez, Huffington Post

With the anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching and the awareness that terrorism is still a real threat for the United States, we should consider what we might do differently to make our country a safer place.

Looking back on the last 10 years, one thing is clear: the violence of terrorism cannot be defeated with more violence. Afghanistan and Iraq are convincing proof of that; both countries remain ravaged by terrorism and al Qaeda forces seem much more resilient than the architect of the war on terror, George W. Bush, ever imagined.

We also know that counter-terrorism measures at home have produced mixed results. On one hand, the government has prevented several domestic attacks through various intelligence operations. On the other hand, the government has also failed to stop would-be terrorists including the Christmas bomber and the Times Square bomber. In both cases, it was the terrorists who failed, not the government that succeeded.

Faced with such realities, what other ways can we think of to address the problem of extremism, if not in the world, then at least at home?

Given the limitations of conventional approaches, I think we might do well to think unconventionally and take a radical untaken step: recruit Muslim women. 

As Americans, we’re used to thinking about Muslim women in various unflattering ways. The most common idea of a Muslim woman, for example, is that of the oppressed victim of Islam. In this manifestation, we usually find a veiled, silent woman imprisoned by her religion and policed by Muslim men. Passively waiting for her rescue, this tradition-bound woman draws significant American attention, if only to remind us how lucky we are to be Americans. 

But if Americans could see beyond the media, or at least see a media willing to highlight the truth about the Muslim world, then we would find that women of the Islamic hue are far from passive or silent. In fact, just a glimpse beyond the surface of American media stereotypes reveals that there are some pretty heroic Muslim women in the world doing some pretty amazing things, especially in the cause for peace.

Take, for example, one of Yemen’s most visible and active women today: Tawakul Karman. A 32-year-old mother of three, Karman is both a journalist and human rights activist active in the push for the right to free expression. A devout Muslim, Karman was inspired by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and is now at the forefront of the effort to challenge Yemen’s authoritarian leader, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Beyond her work as a human rights activist, Karman supports alienated Yemeni youth, is a member of Yemen’s leading Islamic political party and hosts weekly sit-ins in support of political prisoners.

Another example is Manal Omar. Currently the director of Iraq, Iran and North Africa programs from the United States Institute of Peace, Omar has a long record of promoting the rights of Muslim women and working to address humanitarian crises for organizations including Oxfam Great Britain and Women for Women International. In addition to her tenure with UNESCO, Omar worked for three years with the World Bank’s development group conducting training groups in Yemen, Bahrain, Afghanistan and several Muslim-majority countries. More recently, Omar’s CV boasts a book, “Barefoot in Baghdad,” reflecting her time in Iraq working with Muslim women and witnessing their brave stance against the injustices of life under siege.

Karman and Omar are not alone. Throughout the Muslim world (including America), Muslim women are playing a major role in the promotion of justice, freedom and equality for their communities and countries. Indeed, efforts like the Arab Spring suggest that women are not passively waiting to be rescued. On the contrary, they seem to be quite busy planning their own salvation.

What Karman and Omar show is that, far from the clichés of American media, Muslim women matter. And they matter precisely because they’ve refused to be irrelevant. But Karman and Omar offer much more than a counter to the stereotypes of American media. They provide compelling evidence of a vibrant segment of the Muslim population that is unwilling to surrender in the face of violence and terror.

So what can America learn from these women and others like them? One basic lesson is that Muslim women are important players in their communities. Women like Karman and Omar didn’t just happen. Rather, they reflect a tradition — one often ignored — of women’s participation in their communities. If we look beyond the western idea of masculine leadership, we can begin to see that women are active leaders: as mothers, teachers, scholars, counselors and, as Ingrid Matson has shown, presidents of national organizations. With such dynamic points of access to Muslim communities, it seems that ignoring women in the grassroots fight against extremism in the U.S. would be a grave mistake.

Another point we can take from Karman and Omar is that women often choose the path of peace. Leaders like Karman and Omar know first-hand the impact of violence on society and see the need to struggle for peace in definitively nonviolent terms. They understand that peace is not the end point of violent conflict; rather, they see that peace is the consequence of a just social order. And thus they promote empowering forms of nonviolent resistance like sit-ins and human rights campaigns and, more importantly, institutional development. What Karman and Omar are doing is not just fighting; they are building. And what better way to reduce extremism in America than to establish new institutions that give voice to communities that want to be heard and are willing to work for positive forms of change.

Michael Vicente Perez is Associate Editor of Altmuslimah.com.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Mark Oppenheimer, New York Times

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Joe Pompeo, The Cutline

Hillary Clinton’s expression, right hand clasped over her mouth in astonishment, is largely responsible for making the above photo iconic–and, to at least one newspaper, sexually suggestive.

In the photo, President Obama and his national security team are huddled around a conference table in the White House Situation Room, watching CIA director Leon Panetta narrate last Sunday’s raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound. The mood is clearly tense.

When Women’s Wear Daily consulted a coterie of photo editors and designers about why the image is “destined to be one for the history books,” Clinton was foremost in their responses.

“The Hillary Clinton expression is the one that holds the photograph fully,” Time’s photo director told the magazine. “You can see 10 years of tension and heartache and anger in Hillary’s face,” Conde Nast’s Scott Dadich agreed.

Turns out she was probably just coughing during that crucial moment captured by White House photographer Pete Souza. But nevertheless, the image still proved a bit too racy for at least one of the many newspapers that printed it.

That would be the Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic broadsheet Der Tzitung. The paper photoshopped Clinton, as well as the only other woman who could be seen in the room–Audrey Tomason, the national director of counterterrorism–out of the frame.

“Apparently the presence of a woman, any woman, being all womanly and sexy all over the United States’ counterterrorism efforts was too much for the editors of Der Tzitung to handle,” noted the prominent women’s blog Jezebel.

Indeed, “The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive,” Rabbi Jason Miller explains in The Jewish Week. Though he notes that the publication’s “fauxtograpphing” may in fact be a graver act against their religious tenets: “To my mind, this act of censorship is actually a violation of the Jewish legal principle of g’neivat da’at (deceit).”

Beyond that, Der Tzitung’s editors apparently missed or blatantly ignored the guidelines stipulated on the official White House Flickr page, where the photo was released for use by news organizations: “The photograph may not be manipulated in any way.”

The White House has not issued a response on the altered image.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Teo Sagisman

I lost both my parents at what I consider a young age.  My religious background is that of a secular Turkish Muslim but I now consider myself a spiritual seeker more than religious.  I lost my father when I was only five years of age.  My paternal grandfather, originally from Eastern Turkey, had migrated to Istanbul in the early 1900’s.  His last name, Sagisman, I later discover belonged to a list of Jewish converts to Islam (Dönmeh) who followed Sabbatai Zevi (1626-1676) a 17th-century Jewish Kabbalist who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah but was eventually forced by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed IV to convert to Islam.  After Sabbatai’s conversion, a number of Jews followed him into Islam and became the Dönmeh.  Since the 20th century, many Dönmeh have intermarried with other groups and most have assimilated into Turkish society.  Although a few still consider themselves Jews, the Dönmeh are not officially recognized as such by Jewish authorities.   

My father was a secularist who dedicated his life to service in the Turkish army, which upheld the ideals of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, who recognized the danger of Islamic fundamentalism. Dad was a young colonel at the time of his passing. My mother, Nezahat Candas, came from an Anatolian family in Ankara (Ancient Angora), which practiced a form of Islam not yet spoiled or corrupted by 20^th century politics.  Their version of Islam was innocent and lacked political agendas of today’s divisive environment.  I was thirty-four when she passed at the young age of sixty-nine, even though I miss her immensely, I consider myself lucky to have spent the amount of time I had with her.  

My maternal grandparents were devout Muslims who wanted their daughters to have an education in basic Islamic principles.  To that end, they hired a Quran tutor for my mother and her sister so that they could learn the tenets of the Islamic religion.  These lessons with the local imam began, I believe, when my mother was about fifteen and her sister, my Aunt Aysel, was eleven.  My mother immediately rejected the idea of covering her head, a choice that she was free to make.  She received no argument or pressure from her tutor and imam who understood and accepted her decision.  He explained that modesty lies within the one’s heart and actions, not how one dresses.  My grandfather was also supportive of both his daughters’ resistance to wearing the hijab and he never insisted.  The current societal pressures of donning a headscarf did not exist in the Turkey of my mother’s time; women were given the option without worry of pressure from neighbors or society in general. 

Growing up in a Muslim country with a single mother was strange at times.  When my father passed in 1970, my mother was a beautiful and vibrant forty-year old living in a Muslim society that monitored the behavior of attractive young widows.  My mother was always vigilant about her encounters with men even those she allowed into our home to make repairs. 

Our apartment keeper, Sehriban, was a tough-ass rural Anatolian migrant woman who chewed tobacco and wore traditional Anatolian clothing.  Sehriban worked hard to chase away predatory married Muslim men who sometimes stalked my mother.  From the moment Sehriban met our family and learned that my mother was a widow raising two young sons, she determined to ensure our protection.  Aunt Sehriban would spread the rumor that our father was with the (MIT) Turkish Special Services, a governmental agency that was the Turkish equivalent to the Soviet KGB.  The Turkish Special Service members enjoyed notorious reputations at the time, working to quell the communists and Kurdish separatism that threatened the very existence of Ataturk’s Republic.   

I remember the time when my mother and Aunt Sehriban laughed joyfully about a certain married merchant who approached Sehriban about the single woman who lived in her apartment with her young boys.  Sehriban told him not to fuck with my mother, as her husband was a colonel who went underground to fight the communists and separatists on behalf of the government.  She told him that there was a chance he would go missing if he messed with my mother.  Sehriban gleefully relayed how the fearful merchant ran for his life.       

A few weeks after my father’s passing my mom decided to get a driver’s license so that she could drive the family car. My father had signed up to purchase a primitive Turkish made car through the army’s loan program, paying on it in advance for years before the car was finally delivered.  Unfortunately, a few weeks after the car arrived, he died never able to enjoy his clunker Soviet style car named “Anadol”.  Pissed off at one guy’s remarks about women not capable of driving, my mom wanted to make a special point of learning how to drive so that we could all enjoy the car in his honor.  

During the 1970’s in Turkey, there were only a handful of women drivers as most women were seen as incapable of such a task by the macho-minded men mostly guided by the Islamic principles.  I remember the time after she received her license, how people used to stare at us while she was driving.  Curious kids would run behind us screaming, “look at the woman driving, look at the woman driving!”  They may as well have screamed “space aliens.” I realize that in mother’s determination to drive, she was making a point; she was capable of caring for herself and her children, and the macho-minded Islamic society was going to have to accept her independence. 

The present religious climate in Turkey is very different from the one my mother encountered and challenged.  There is a sense of resentment between the religious and secular groups.  Forget about the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim strife that dominates so much of our news. In present-day Turkey, the secularists resent the Islamic rise of power and the Islamic government is slowly eroding the rights of a secular republic.  A secular Muslim can be hateful towards conservative Muslim women who may chose to cover, and conservative Muslims often belittle and demean those who choose not to wear a headscarf.  When taking all these in consideration, I have realized the importance of moderation and the need for moderate women everywhere—women like my mother.  Instead of following religion and culture blindly, sometimes the rules need to be bent and customs tweaked. 

Even though my mother read the Quran daily and performed her daily prayers, she never pressured her sons to do the same.  She never forced us to go to a Mosque or told us we were going to hell for Islamic theological reasons.  She raised us with basic moral values that did not include a passage from Quran with every other sentence.  She bent the rules occasionally to adapt the realities of life and yet still kept her faith, which was a very important part of her life.   

On one occasion, when she came to United States for a visit, I remember her meeting my girl friend Heather and her dog Zen.  In Islam, dogs are frowned upon.  Many devout Muslims somehow consider the dog dirty creatures.  This may be due to the Prophet Muhammad’s personal dislike towards the dogs.  After meeting Zen, my mother told me that in order for her to perform her prayers in my house, the dog had to go.  She said, “the angels won’t come to the house!”  I think it was superstition speaking on her behalf.  I agreed to her wishes without difficulty as Heather and Zen had their own apartment.  A few weeks later, Heather and I had to go out of town on an overnight trip and I asked my mother if she could watch over Zen.  She reluctantly took him as she was always eager to help me, especially if she knew I was in a bind.   

We returned to find Zen lounging in bed with my mother, and she reacted as if we had caught her in bed with a strange man!  She said that she bathed had him, made him a floor bed surrounded with stuffed animals in her room, talked to Zen about not disturbing her while she prayed, and pronounced him good company.  My mother no longer understood dogs as unclean nor could they keep her from creating a pure space to perform her prayers.  Afterward, Zen was a part of her life along with her prayers.  She took him for walks everyday and insisted he stayed with her during her visits.  She saw him as an angel on earth contrary to most Muslim’s belief.

On another occasion, I took her to a café to have lunch.  We ordered her first American style pizza covered in sausage, pepperoni and cheese.  She loved it and helped me devour every little piece.  For those of you who may not be familiar with Islamic tenets, it is a huge sin for a Muslim to eat pork or pork products.  By some accounts, you are condemned to hell!  As you guessed, the pepperoni and sausage was made of pork.  After enjoying her pizza, she asked about the unidentified meat she had just eaten.  I paused and tried to weigh my response, fearing how she would respond to knowing she had consumed pork.  Not wanting to lie, I blurted out that the delicious meats were indeed pork!  She was silent for a moment and I still remember the big smile on her face as she waved her hand in the air, like she always did when she wanted to say screw it, and said, “That was very tasty.  My God won’t count this as a sin!”   

My mother was a great example for me and later in life, I would appreciate her strength and her need to question the rules.  My mother believed that God endowed us with a mind and will of our own and that mind was meant to question the rules society, tradition, culture, and religion force upon us.  This, my friends is moderation in religion and in life, and any one of us could learn from her open, curious, and practical approach to life.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

The tradition, I believe, is potentially an exciting case study for the development of Hinduism in America with ramifications for the new religious movement. Sitting poised in a synchretism of faith honoring Shaktism and contemporary Paganism, Sha’can, much like American Buddhism, is co-created from ancient roots in a new land.  Additionally, while Sha’can in my mind is not part of the Indo-Pagan movement (because it is an innovation of Shakta Hindu philosophy and the(a)ology rather than a tradition that offers space for Hindu deities and ritual within established or newly established Pagan pathways), others within the tradition do consider it a manifestation of the rise in popularity and awareness of Hindu deities increasingly incorporated into different varieties of Paganism. Either way, the tradition stands ready to welcome those seeking an expression for their devotion to and yearning for Goddess in and through the forms, symbols, tools and practices that She offers via-a-vis Hindu Shakta Tantra and its contemporary expressions.  Sha’can seeks to make the experience of worship and devotion relevant to these times at the same time that it drives for an honoring of those teachers and practitioners, past, present and future, who have grown and continue to grow Shakta Tantra in India and beyond.

Through the ancient traditions of Goddess worship still practiced today in Hindu South Asia and especially as made relevant for those without otherwise religious or cultural access to the Divine Female and Divine Feminine in ways that are empowering for actual women, the Sha’can tradition offers a glimpse through Kali worship and the practices of Shakta Tantra at possibilities for the Feminine and female that lie outside of limiting constructs. Certainly, patriarchy plays a role in religions everywhere, and religions of Goddess are no exception. Yet, within Hindu Shakta Tantra conjured in conjunction with ecofeminist spirituality, we are finding expanded notions of divinity and (r)evolutionary potentials for engagement in the world that promote healing and peace in response to patriarchy and its agendas. 

I should note that as I type, an image of Kali greets my gaze. I focus on Her black feet sporting golden anklets, with the residue of alta, a red plant-based, semi-permanent dye, decorating the outline of the soles and spaces in-between the toes. Join me in this gaze for a moment. From this perspective, we are internally bowed low. We are spiritually naked before Adya Maa, the Primordial Dark Goddess, and here, we may come just a bit closer to an understanding of who She is and what She offers. I argue that here, the Witch and the Tantrick meet to create, enliven and empower us all! 

[2] SHARANYA (www.sharanya.org) is a 501(c)(3) federally-recognized devi mandir (goddess temple) performing public puja (worship) and offering classes and spiritual services to community in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond in the Sha’can tradition.

********************************************

Bio: Chandra Alexandre is a householder and clergy, initiated in 1998 into the mysteries of the dark goddess in India—first on the dakshinacara path and then, five years later, on the non-dualistic path of vamacara tantra. She is founder and a spiritual leader of the SHARANYA community and Daughters of Kali dedicated to engaged spirituality for social justice and transformation through (r)evolutionary shakta tantra known as Sha’can. Chandra and community also run an online mystery school, Kali Vidya (www.KaliVidya.org). In addition to serving as adjunct faculty at the Institute for Transpersonal Psychology, Chandra is conjurer of The Aghori Bakery (forthcoming). She holds a PhD in Asian & Comparative Studies from CIIS, a Doctor of Ministry degree, and an MBA in sustainable management. She is a fund development officer during business hours for a public policy advocacy organization and at all hours, mother to Eve, born at home on December 12, 2009. Chandra can be reached at chandra@sharanya.org.  

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

Sheema Khan, The Globe and Mail

During a brief visit to Cairo last week, I was struck by the willingness of Egyptians to offer spontaneous criticism of the previous regime. From our felucca guide on the Nile to the Egyptologist providing commentary of the pyramids, conversations would begin with a cathartic rant against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, followed by the explanation: “We could have never said this before.”

Egyptians are savouring the taste of freedom after decades of dictatorship, following 18 wondrous days of dignified protest at Tahrir Square. Men, women, Muslims, Copts, rich, poor, educated, illiterate – all were united in their heartfelt desire for a life free of oppression. The spirit of Tahrir Square spilled over into the March 19 referendum on constitutional changes designed to ensure free and fair elections. At 41 per cent, voter turnout was much higher than in past elections, which were seen as rigged in favour of the incumbent. Parliamentary elections are set for September.

Yet, it seems the revolution may be leaving women behind.

During the protests at Tahrir Square, women worked alongside men, organizing, demonstrating, calling for Mr. Mubarak’s ouster. Endemic sexual harassment, like dictatorship, seemed a thing of the past. Many revelled in the new-found societal respect and appreciation of women as partners.

Then came the March 8 rally to commemorate International Women’s Day. About 200 women, along with a smattering of men, gathered in Tahrir Square to urge Egypt to give women a voice in building its future. Many had been alarmed by an ominous turn of political events deemed unfavourable to women: Only one woman had been selected to the interim cabinet; the eight-member committee tasked with formulating constitutional amendments was all male; one of the proposed amendments suggested that future presidents could only be male; and the quota of 64 parliamentary seats for women had been abolished.

The reaction in Tahrir Square that day was swift and brutal, as groups of men accosted the women, hurling insults, and much worse. They were told to go home and wash clothes, that their actions were “un-Islamic.” Some of the women were sexually harassed or groped.

Things didn’t get any better the next day, when the army cleared Tahrir Square of encamped protesters. Amnesty International reported that at least 18 female protesters were arrested, tortured and subjected to “virginity tests.” One 20-year-old, Salwa Hosseini, described her humiliation when she was forced to take off her clothes in a room while male soldiers looked in and took photographs of her. Later, a man carried out a “virginity” exam, and she was threatened with prostitution charges.

The army has denied culpability. Nonetheless, there are trepidations about the army’s lack of accountability in postrevolutionary Egypt. While constitutional amendments pave the way toward a robust system of political checks and balances, some worry about the lack of scrutiny of the military, which enjoys widespread popularity.

The threat of organized retaliation against women continued. On March 28, panicked women contacted the Egyptian Centre for Women’s Rights, complaining that fundamentalist Salafist groups had ordered all Egyptian women (including Copts) to cover themselves from head to toe, or face harassment. A few days earlier, some women reported that Salafists were blocking their cars when they tried to drive to work; they were told to stay in their houses.

Although a tiny minority, Salafists are growing in numbers and influence. By comparison, the Muslim Brotherhood seems downright moderate, although its conservative platform alarms many women’s groups.

Undaunted by the challenges, Egyptian women continue to speak out, repeating the demands of the revolution: justice, freedom and dignity. Hoda Badran, chair of the Alliance for Arab Women, told me that, with better organization, women’s groups can make a difference. There’s also a new level of confidence and self-awareness among women as a result of their integral role in the revolution.

Having tasted the fruits of their efforts, they’re determined to ensure their rightful place in the future of their nation.

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

Danielle Elizabeth Tumminio, State of Formation

I was walking down the crowded, cobblestoned streets of Jerusalem’s Old City when a bearded man with narrow eyes reached out his hand and tried to grab my breast.  I did not know him.  I had not made eye contact.  I was not acting provocatively—in fact, despite a heat wave that added insult to the already injurious desert summer, I was burning up in the long-sleeved shirt and ankle-length skirt that’s customary for the region.  In response, the man with whom I was traveling reached out and struck the stranger’s hand, causing him to trip sideways into the crowd.

Many other women who visit the Holy Land have a story like mine.  My orthodox Jewish friend was asked to give up her bus seat when a Haredi (aka ultra-orthodox) male sat next to her; another woman received catcalls while dining al fresco; a third tried to buy watermelon at a market stall when the owner pointed to her breasts and said, “You want to buy my fruit?  Well, I like your fruit.”

One woman who overheard Haredi men gossiping about her immodest t-shirt and capris tucked her sleeves under her bra straps and yanked the pants over her knees, then turned to the men and called back, “If you think I was inappropriate before, then you’d better avert your eyes now.”

What I’d like to think about a bit here is why stories like these matter.  None of them approach the kinds of gross violations reported in various parts of the Middle East over the past year, such as the near stoning of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the assault of Lara Logan in Egypt, or the alleged gang rape of Eman al Obaidi in Libya.  Nor do they approach the disturbing abuses that occur on our own soil: Chris Brown’s attack of Rihanna or Elizabeth Smart’s terrible ordeal, to name just a few.

In light of such cases, one might wonder why incidents like these require attention—there was no long-term harm, no PTSD treatment, no lawsuit.  They’re not sensational, and, in turn, not particularly memorable: a woman gave up a bus seat; another had an almost tragic-comical moment with a vendor at a market who probably didn’t think he was being inappropriate at all.  So what? With truly horrific reports of violence against women surfacing almost daily, our attention ought to be solely focused on eradicating those kinds of harm.

Or should they?  Perhaps the most compelling reason why we should care about such incidences is because it’s these quiet, unremarkable events that open the floodgates to more profound abuses.  The logic might proceed that if it’s okay to grab a woman’s breast, then it must be okay to grab other parts of her body.  If it’s permissible to tell her where she can sit on a bus, then why not dictate when she can be out of the house or what places she can drive to or what subjects she can study in school.  In other words, insidious abuses create the possibility of more grotesque ones.  And when such abuses—grotesque or otherwise—occur on land hallowed by three major world religions, not only is it a devastating testament to humanity’s brokenness, but it almost seems to desecrate holy ground, to damage the integrity of the faiths themselves.

It therefore becomes incumbent upon those Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to work together to create a Holy Land that welcomes and affirms women.  The first step towards accomplishing this goal might be to recognize that just as violence begins in quiet, insidious ways, so hope is realized in the same manner.  That means that there is the possibility for transformation every time a woman speaks about her reality and listeners acknowledge it.  It means promoting education because every day that a girl is in school makes her one day wiser, one day less likely to accept injustice.

It’s no secret that violence against women is a global problem—whether the issue is female genital mutilation in Gambia[1], honor killings in Pakistan[2], or human trafficking in Kosovo.[3] What might be overlooked is the way in which minor injustices—those as insignificant as an unwanted hand reaching toward a breast—can function as metaphoric gateway drugs to these other kinds of violence.  What also might be overshadowed in national and international policy discussions about women’s rights are the roles that faith traditions can play.  By joining together, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism may be able to not only prevent the kind of violence that makes news headlines.  They may also be able to prevent the subtler incidences that precipitate it.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT77/007/1997/en/b5feef1a-0ab1-4419-9465-d297bef760ef/act770071997fr.html

****************************************************************

Danielle Elizabeth Tumminio, State of Formation

The Reverend Danielle Elizabeth Tumminio is ordained in The Episcopal Church and has taught a variety of educational institutions, including Yale University. She is completing a doctoral degree in practical theology at Boston University, where she researches trauma and barrenness; she is also the author of “God and Harry at Yale: Faith and Fiction in the Classroom” (Unlocking Press, 2010).

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Nicole Greenfield, Religion Dispatches

Annie Lobert (r) and Heather Veitch

Annie Lobért knows that sex sells. The 16 years she spent as a stripper, prostitute, and high-class escort, most recently on the Las Vegas Strip, taught her that. And although she’s been out of the game for years, has since accepted Christ and gotten married (to Oz Fox, lead guitarist for the Christian metal band Stryper), Lobért appreciates the allure of her former lifestyle. Calling herself a hooker for Jesus, she has set out to “hook, help, and heal” those still in the industry.

Lobért, a curvy peroxide blonde, has been unabashed in flaunting her God-given gifts to draw attention to her Vegas-based ministry,Hookers for Jesus. At the 2008 Adult Entertainment Expo, for example, a 40-year-old Lobért (dressed in a tight black tank top with strategically placed pink letters spelling “HOOKERS” above a silver ichthus) confronted some of the industry’s most renowned promoters alongside Heather Veitch, a former stripper with a ministry of her own. While their message wasn’t particularly well-received by the adult filmmakers or the stars who work for them, Lobért and Veitch had no trouble finding fans among the expo’s 40,000 visitors.

“Some Christians Think We are Just Cheap Harlots”

“A lot of guys pose for photos with us and when they go home and look up what’s on our T-shirts, they learn what we’re about,” Lobért explained toTelegraph reporter Philip Sherwell. “We call it booby-trapping.”

But those who attend adult entertainment fairs aren’t exactly Lobért’s target audience. Her conspicuous appearance is also meant to attract the other women posing for photos and signing autographs, the women outside and in the casinos, the women working the Strip—the women she is trying to save.

“The girls can relate to who we are and how we look in a way that they can’t with some of the typical frumpy Christians who come here,” Lobért told Sherwell. “We don’t preach to them and we’re not judgmental. We tell them that God loves them, even if they are hookers or strippers or porn stars. We offer help and advice—we do whatever we can for them.”

Last December, cable viewers got a taste of what it might be like to minister in “America’s prostitution capital” in the three-part series Hookers: Saved on the Strip. The show, which aired on the crime-and mystery-focused network Investigation Discovery, profiled Lobért and Hookers for Jesus and, in true reality docudrama fashion, the personal stories of three women who have been “saved.”

In a segment she calls “Saturday Night Love,” Lobért brings her “takes one to know one” attitude to the Strip, boasting that she can spot a working girl anywhere. Equipped with gift bags full of beauty products and Bibles, she offers support and encouragement, and an invitation to church.

“I’m serious about this,” she tells one woman who stuffs Lobért’s business card into her bra. “God really does love you and he loves girls like us. And you know what? You don’t have to quit working. You can come to church. Just like you are.” Despite their sincere efforts, Lobért and Hookers for Jesus have drawn their share of criticism. “Some Christians think we are just cheap harlots and tell us so,” she says. “But to be honest, we really don’t care.”

Even the television show, which begins with a warning about its potentially disturbing content, seems to favor sex over religion, the hookers over Jesus. “The parts that you will see is what [Investigation Discovery] chose to portray,” Lobért explained to The Christian Post:

“There are a lot of things that you will not see that you’re just going to have to trust, if you are a Christian watching, that we are doing this for God. It is a show about redemption and restoration in Jesus Christ.”

While the network almost certainly did some selective editing, the explicitly sexual nature of Hookers: Saved on the Strip, and of Lobért and her project in general, is a good example of a peculiar paradox: the evangelical tendency to use graphic language and imagery when discussing—and especially when condemning—sexual issues and activities. From abstinence education to exhortations against masturbation to bedroom advice for married couples, a range of books, websites, and even sermons, examine sex in vivid detail.

This approach may seem counterproductive but, as historian Dagmar Herzog has noted, “evangelical sex advice lures and tempts and arouses—all in the name of Christ. It does so in order to argue that not only non-marital sex but also masturbation and fantasy stunt emotional growth, destroy souls, and devastate marriages. This has been its overt message, but to get that message out as forcefully as possible, evangelical sex experts now engage in their own version of Christian pornography.”

In a scene from Saved on the Strip, Lobért characterizes porn as a “gateway drug” to prostitution, blaming both producers and addicted consumers for the plight of many of the women working the Strip and elsewhere, by addressing viewers in the confession cam setting that has come to define reality television.

“Each time you do it, you want more. More of that rush, more of that crazy feeling.” Cue the music, cut to a close-up of a woman pulling on fishnets and fastening stilettos. “It’s suggestive.” She continues, fighting back tears and yelling: “It ain’t right. It’s not fair. It’s wrong. To sell sex with porn, and to get people addicted so that now guys have to act out their fantasy and call us. And then we get blamed for their addiction!”

Cut to the fishnets.

Conflating Prostitution, Sex-Trafficking, Slavery

Annie Lobért grew up in a middle class family on a tree-lined street in Minnesota. Her upbringing was strict, and she hated the rules that her mother and her father and the church imposed on her. “So naturally when I hit the age of a teenager,” she told Joy Behar in a television interview, “I just went wild.”

Lobért did drugs and she slept around. She was insecure and felt unloved, so she started stripping to prove her worth. And before long, she fell in love with a regular customer who, after they moved to Las Vegas, eventually became her pimp. “I never knew when I got older that I would be a prostitute,” Lobért says. “I wanted to be like the stars. I wanted to have happiness like they did… I thought the casinos looked so beautiful, the glamour and the glitz of it all, the showgirls and the shows, and the movie stars… that was so alluring to me.”

During her time in the industry, Lobért certainly experienced the glamour and the glitz, the money and the cars and the jewelry. But she also faced the threats and the suffering, the violence and the oppression, that come with the job. She tells stories of being beaten and abducted, and of how she still lives in fear.

It is understandable, then, why Lobért might consider prostitution a form of slavery and think of all sex work as trafficking. It is understandable, but it is also imprecise. By using and emphasizing these terms, Lobért and her Hookers for Jesus ministry conflate coercion and consent, leaving little room for alternative narratives and divergent circumstances. Growing up in middle-class America and making a choice, however misguided, to enter the sex industry stands in stark contrast, for instance, to being sold, transported, and forced into the industry as a child. The point is not to trivialize prostitution-as-choice, or to ignore the effects of coercion, but rather to point out the realities indicated by the terms ‘slavery’ and ‘trafficking.’

Benjamin Skinner, author of A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face With Modern-Day Slavery, addressed the issue in a 2008 interview with Mother Jones. “For the record, I think prostitution is always degrading and exploitative and it is often brutal, but it is not always slavery,” he said. “Those [including many evangelicals] who argue that it is, however well-meaning they may be, are doing tremendous damage by diminishing the suffering and pulling attention away from the millions of people in the world who are slaves, not to mention those who are genuinely enslaved in prostitution.”

The issue of sex trafficking has been a central evangelical concern for more than a decade. Led by Michael Horowitz, a neo-conservative scholar at the Hudson Institute, a coalition of evangelicals including Chuck Colson (joined improbably by a group of feminists who had already been championing the cause) pushed for legislation that would eventually become the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000. While these proponents fought in vain for a broad definition of trafficking that would include “voluntary” prostitution, they succeeded in another section of the bill that refers to all commercial sex acts as sex trafficking. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, the coalition also embraced a limited interpretation of victims as women and children.

Many see this effort, and particularly the religious right’s leadership on the issue, as enabling a moral crusade. “They’re not trying to liberate women, or trying to let them control their own destiny,” Chip Berlet at Political Research Associates, a nonprofit that tracks right-wing networks, commented. “They’re trying to stop women from sinning.”

It is important to note, however, that not all evangelicals committed to countering sex trafficking are as politically conservative, or even as overt, as Horowitz and his allies, for whom the trafficked woman becomes a symbol of moral decay and grounds for speaking out against issues such as pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. For other evangelicals, the matter is often one of several social justice issues—like the environment and poverty—that they are dedicated to addressing.

But Lobért’s own motive for employing the trafficking and slave labels seems just as much about a quest for personal absolution and recognition as it is about saving women from sin or raising public awareness. When it’s ‘prostitution,’ no one wants to talk to you, but it’s the same thing,” she told Salon writer Tracy Clark-Flory. “You’re being trafficked. You’re being enslaved. You might not see the chains, but they’re there.”

The Sins Have All Been Confessed

Lobért wants her audience, and maybe also God, to know her experience wasn’t her fault. At least not all 16 years of her experience. She was coerced, she was forced, she was threatened. She couldn’t leave. Her account is certainly moving, and it also makes for a great born-again redemption story.

The precise details of Lobért’s ultimate escape from her former lifestyle are unclear but two things are certain: she overdosed and she found Jesus. It was only after a mix of cocaine, Xanax, Oxycodone, and other drugs gave her a near-fatal heart attack that Lobért prayed and asked God for help. And she’s been working the Strip, as a Hooker for Jesus, ever since.

In a 2009 interview with Religion Dispatches, Dagmar Herzog highlighted a central feature of Annie Lobért’s project, of Hookers for Jesus and Hookers: Saved on the Strip. “Evangelical advice-givers like to brag about the wild promiscuity of their youth, and their many adulterous misdeeds, or to confess in anguish the abortions they forced on girlfriends or the porn they once so frequently indulged in, before moving on to advise others how to get onto the straight and narrow.” Not only is it titillating, she explains, but also it preempts any malicious efforts to uncover past sins.

“There’s nothing to expose,” Herzog says, “the sins have all been luxuriously confessed.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Kate Daley-Bailey

Mary Magdalene

In her article Vatican Smokescreen Maneuver: The Dreaded Delicta Graviora, Heather Abraham writes compellingly about the unusual pairing of the ordination of women with sexual abuse of children under “delicta graviora” in the Catholic Church:

What is surprising to many, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, is the Vatican’s renewed and intensified condemnation of the ordination of women.  The new norms will declare any attempted ordination of women to be comparable to sexual abuse of children or delicta graviora.  This decision is more than a little suspicious given its timing and the fact that excommunication is already automatic for any woman who attempts ordination and any priest who may assist in said ordination.

Abraham’s article awoke anew many concerns I have had with the Catholic Church’s’ ardent fear of the possibility of allowing women into positions of authority in the church.  As Abraham so astutely pointed out, the linking of female ordination and sexual abuse of children is startling.  Is the Catholic Church launching a preemptive strike against what they fear will be a renewed interest in allowing women into the priesthood?  This overreaction led me to investigate the origin of the Church’s fear of women in leadership roles.

Where, when, and with whom did this fear originate?  According to various scholars of early Christian history, one of extraordinary features of the early Jesus movement, was its radical egalitarian nature.  John Crossan’s theory of the historical Jesus is described as follows:

The historical Jesus proves to be a displaced Galilean peasant artisan who had got fed up with the situation and went about preaching a radical message: an egalitarian vision of the Kingdom of God present on earth and available to all as manifested in the acts of Jesus in healing the sick and practicing an open commensality in which all were invited to share. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html)

This radical egalitarian ethos attributed to the early Jesus movement is thought to have been tempered over time as Christianity gained popularity among upper-classes.  This was especially the case with regard to women in roles of authority in the early Church.  Elizabeth Clark, Professor of Religion and Graduate Program director at Duke University, writes:

What seems to happen within the first few centuries is that whatever limited activities women might have had in the beginning begin to get curtailed as you have the development of a hierarchy of clergy members with bishops, presbyters and deacons, and it’s pretty firmly established that women should not be either bishops or priests.  Many church fathers write about this.  So that women tend to get excluded from those functions, [though] they do have some roles, [such] as joining a group called the widows or deaconesses in the fourth century.  We have good evidence of an order of deaconesses, but they are excluded from the priesthood.

While some scholars, like Gnostic Gospels scholar and professor of Religion at Princeton University Elaine Pagels, are skeptical of claims that early Christianity was completely egalitarian in nature, they do mark a transition in the movement regarding the roles of women.  Pagels comments on the fluidity of the early Jesus movement:

Some people suggest that the early Christian movement was an egalitarian one.  I’m not so sure of that.  It does seem to me that when it was a marginal movement, when it was dangerous to belong to it.  [In his letters] Paul speaks of women as his fellow evangelists and teachers and patrons and friends, as he does of men. So it seems that the movement took anybody that it could get, and depended on them in ways that much more established groups, like for example, the Jewish community of a wealthy town like Sepphoris, might not have allowed.

Pagels also addresses how some church fathers attacked various women leaders in the church:

We know that Tertullian, one of the leaders of the church in Africa, spoke about a woman he called simply, ‘that viper,’ because she was baptizing people.  And he said, ‘These heretical women, how audacious they are. I mean they, they teach, they baptize, they preach, they do all kinds of things they shouldn’t do. It’s horrible, in short.’ And so we know that there was a great deal of ferment in these communities about the role of women.

According to Karen Jo Torjessen, the early Christian communities, which had been ridiculed and persecuted over the first couple centuries of existence, were trying to survive.  However, this gradual assimilation to Hellenistic cultural views limits the role of women in the early Church:

…Christian communities had gradually begun to assimilate themselves to Hellenistic culture. Jewish communities had done the same.  In their increasing desire for credibility and legitimacy, the church leaders no longer resisted the tide of culture.  Gradually they adopted Greco-Roman conventions regarding women’s proper place and behavior.  Both Jewish and Christian writers, like their pagan counterparts, argued that it was inappropriate for women to hold positions of authority in the public sphere.  For both Jewish and Christian theologians, as for pagan philosophers, the good woman was a chaste woman.  In their view, female promiscuity posed the greatest threat to women’s character.  Every aspect of female deportment should evince a concern for shame, expressed through reticence, deference toward men, and sexual restraint. (When Women were Priests, page 38)

If reticence and deference to men was symbolic of female chastity, then the flip side would also be the case: unrestrained, communicative women who did not defer to male authority were viewed as sexually promiscuous. Given these connections, it is not terribly strange that Mary Magdalene, whom some scholars believe was a teacher in her own right, was later associated with sexual scandal.  Here are some interesting notes on the how the image of Mary Magdalene became the symbolic representation in the argument over women in leadership roles in the church.

James Carroll, in his article Who was Mary Magdalene? illustrates how the New Testament only tells its readers a few things about this Mary.  She is from Magdala, a prosperous trade center on an international route, near the Sea of Galilee.  The canonical gospels inform us that Mary Magdalene was one of many Marys that followed Jesus and was the only Mary not associated with a family (for example: Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, etc.).  Jesus was said to have exorcised seven demons from Mary Magdalene and, according to the text, she is also present at the crucifixion.  Intriguingly, Mary Magdalene was the first follower to see the risen Christ.  Most importantly for this discussion, Mary Magdalene is never associated, in the New Testament, with sexual deviance, prostitution, or adultery.  These associations come later.  But why?

Carroll presents us with some compelling information about how three unnamed women in the gospels (the woman who anoints the feet of Jesus with perfume, the Samaritan woman at the well, the adulterous woman), all with unsavory reputations, get conflated with the image of Mary Magdalene.  The textual proximity between stories of Mary Magdalene and these unnamed women is part of the association.  The story of the woman with the “bad name” who anointed Jesus with expensive perfume in the Gospel of Luke is only one chapter away from the introduction of Mary Magdalene to text.  The Gospel of Matthew presents another version of this story but this time associates the anointing specifically with Jesus’ preparation for burial.  Jesus’ burial is usually associated with women who followed him, especially Mary Magdalene.  Carroll points out that these stories emphasize a woman with a “bad name” who owns expensive oils and perfumes which she uses, along with her uncovered hair, to wash Jesus’ feet.  The common themes here are sex and money.  However, is this enough to explain how Mary Magdalene became associated with this scandalous unnamed woman?

It was not long before the church was depicting Mary Magdalene, not as a female disciple of Jesus, but as the penitent prostitute who turned from a life of sin to follow Jesus.  Pope Gregory the first (540c.e. -604c.e.), in a famous series of sermons on Mary Magdalene, melds a series of unnamed women in the gospels into the image of Mary Magdalene.  Carroll presents us with some excerpts from Gregory’s sermons:

She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark.  And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices?…

It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.  What she therefore displayed more scandalously, she was now offering to God in a more praiseworthy manner.  She had coveted with earthly eyes, but now through penitence these are consumed with tears. She displayed her hair to set off her face, but now her hair dries her tears.  She had spoken proud things with her mouth, but in kissing the Lord’s feet, she now planted her mouth on the Redeemer’s feet.  For every delight, therefore, she had had in herself, she now immolated herself.  She turned the mass of her crimes to virtues, in order to serve God entirely in penance.

These passages from Pope Gregory have etched an image of Mary Magdalene in minds of parishioners which is hard to erase… regardless of how many times we revisit the text.  If we return to Karen Jo Torjessen’s quotation which describes the church’s view of outspoken women as promiscuous women, we can reverse these associations here. If women were considered chaste to the extent that they were reticent, deferential toward men, and sexually restrained, then women, in this context, who are associated with promiscuity can be read as outspoken, dismissive of standard social roles, and perhaps sexually liberated.  Was Mary Magdalene conflated with these various scandalous women because she was a woman in a role dominated by men?  Was the image of penitent prostitute assigned to her, not because she was once a prostitute, but because she did not defer to the social standards of historical context?  And, would her memory have survived, if she had not been blended with these memorable, albeit scandalous, unnamed women?

Extending this to the Catholic Church today, I wonder if the Church’s reassertion of the ordination ban, with regard to women, is yet another example of the Church’s fear of females with authority?

Resources for further inquiry:

• Mary Ann Beavis’ article, Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia,
  Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion – Volume 23, Number 2, Fall 2007, pp. 27-49
• James Carroll’s article: Who was Mary Magdalene?  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/magdalene.html
• Elizabeth Clark’s and Elaine Pagels’ quotations are from the website, From Jesus to Christ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
• Karen Jo Torjesen’s book, When Women were Priests

Banner picture: The Feast of the Magdalene, http://www.overheardinthesacristy.net/?p=5369

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Peter Applebome, New York Times

Palenville, New York

During Palenville Pagan Pride Day in August, the agenda reflected the goddess-centered theology of the Divine Feminine, which members say has its roots 12,000 years ago in the Goddess Cybele in Central Anatolia, in Turkey.

So after the opening ritual at 9 a.m. and sandwiched around “Lunchtime with the Priestesses,” the schedule at the old Central House Inn included “The Goddess in Antiquity,” “Pagans in the Mundane World” and sessions on sacred drumming patterns, dragon rituals and the Cybeline Revival.

Still, it was the least celestial item that perhaps mattered most. That would be “Discussion of Maetreum of Cybele v. Town of Catskill, N.Y.,” a legal case dating to 2007 after the town first approved and then denied tax-exempt status for the group, which has been certified by the federal government as a tax-exempt religious charity. The goddess may rule the universe, but the lawyers will help decide whether the pagans of Palenville have a future in this historic old town just down the snowy hills from Hunter Mountain.

Built in the 1850s, the Central House functioned for most of its years as an inn in Palenville, a hamlet of about 1,000 in the Town of Catskill, which is the fictional home of Rip Van Winkle and has been called America’s first artists’ colony.

Thus, it was both somewhat jarring and not entirely impossible to imagine when four women, with interests in goddess worship and the idea of a women’s housing cooperative welcoming transsexual women, bought the increasingly decrepit inn in 2002. It eventually became the Catskills Phrygianum of the Maetreum of Cybele Magna Mater, their global headquarters and convent house. There it stands: yellow paint peeling, a pink bus in the snow, bright banners above the porch.

The group’s public face is Cathryn Platine, a stocky former certified nursing assistant and cabinet maker, who long ago lost a finger to a miter saw. Ms. Platine, 61, who describes herself as a lifelong pagan descended from a witch hanged at Salem and from John Quincy Adams, said her religion had been the only one singled out locally.

“We’re women oriented,” she said. “We’re goddess oriented. We’re gay and lesbian friendly. We’re witchy. We’re set up for communal living for priestesses. I think we set off a lot of buttons.”

She said the town’s legal case kept shifting, and the only constant seemed to be animus toward the group.

“It’s a mystery to us why this fight continues,” she said. “We’re pretty clearly who we are. And there’s nothing threatening about what we do here. Come on, we’re practically Catholic nuns except we’re willing to have sex.”

Daniel Vincelette, a lawyer representing the town, said the dispute was not over whether the group was a religion or a charity, but whether the use of the house was directly tied to the religious purpose. If the use is primarily residential and the religious use is incidental, that would not be tax exempt, he said.

“Whether it’s Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, whatever it is, we look at it the same way,” he said. “If you look at the documents, the way this has developed, the town’s position is that this is not supporting an exempt purpose.”

The town’s specific objections differed for the two years being contested by the group, but both focused on the use of the house, not whether the group was a valid religion.

That may be wise, given the religious figurines and pictures inside, the detailed theology on the Web site and regular events like daily praise observances, goddess meetups, full moon observances, priestess training and others that might not be Sunday church religion but could easily be viewed as religion nonetheless.

There are, of course, all kinds of questions that can be asked about religious tax exemptions over all, but the Maetreum’s $5,400 tax bill is unlikely to rival the multimillion-dollar exemptions of conventional religions. Still, with unconventional religions on the rise, it poses issues that go beyond the old inn here.

The Cybelines are facing possible foreclosure proceedings for the $13,800 they owe and appealing for money. But in the smorgasbord of religious law, they may also have weapons of their own if they want to pursue a discrimination claim. They say they just want to get back to where they were.

“Our goal is simply to have them recognize us, give back the money they owe us and our attorney fees, and leave us alone,” Ms. Platine said. “We will walk away from this happily if they’re willing to do that.”

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

Religion Newswriters Association, Religion Link

Super Bowl XLV in Dallas will be the most watched, and most hyped, sporting event of the year. But the dark side of such a huge gathering is the sex trade that targets the thousands who attend. This edition of ReligionLink focuses on the human trafficking pipeline that supplies the sex-for-money industry.

Religious groups have increasingly put human trafficking at the top of their social justice agendas, and many of those groups hope to use this year’s big game as a platform for drawing attention to what some call a modern-day slave trade.

Estimates of how many people are in some form of bondage around the globe range from 12 million to 27 million victims, and human trafficking is now a growing local issue in the United States, as experts say there are forced laborers and sex workers in every U.S. state.

Texas is a focal point for the American trade. The U.S. Justice Department estimates that approximately 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States annually, and some 20 percent of them come through Texas. In 2008, nearly 4 in 10 calls to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline were from Texas.

A Jan. 25 blog post at Christianity Today‘s website details how a number of church-based anti-trafficking groups plan to combat the sex trade during the run-up to the Super Bowl. The groups include Traffick911, a Fort Worth-based nonprofit, and Love 146, a Connecticut-based anti-trafficking ministry. And Christian Brothers Investment Services, an investment firm that works with 1,000 Catholic institutions, is pressuring Dallas hotels to help battle the sex trade.

The blight of human trafficking is of course far bigger than the Super Bowl and the state of Texas, and there are a number of developments that are raising the visibility of this issue, and the visibility of religious groups fighting to end modern slavery.

What’s new

• NGOs and nonprofits are now enlisting the aid of international, national and local religious groups in the fight against human trafficking. Christian and Jewish groups in particular are bringing the issue and its victims into their congregations, exploring their sacred texts for direction and solutions. There are now cross-denominational Freedom Sundays and Freedom Shabbats and interfaith conferences dedicated to the issue. At the same time, more local and state governments are focusing on the issue. As of January 2011, 67 bills at the state level were pending, according to the Polaris Project.
• The Conference on Religion, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery will be held March 31-April 2, 2011, at the University of Denver, where it will be a joint project of the university and the Iliff School of Theology.
• The Freedom Summit 2011 was held Jan. 21-22 and organized by the Bay Area Anti-Trafficking Coalition in concert with Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, Calif. The summit focused on building community awareness and mobilization against human trafficking. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered a keynote address.
• In 2010, the U.S. State Department issued its 10th annual report on global human trafficking — the enforced labor, selling or prostitution of persons without their consent or benefit. “Trafficking in Persons Report 2010″ shows that 12.3 million people – most of them women and children – are enslaved globally. For the first time, the report ranked the U.S. among countries faced with the problem, and gave it “tier 1″ status, ranking it among the top enforcers of human trafficking laws and prosecutors of those who engage in it.
• According to the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2005 there were about 10,000 forced laborers in the U.S., around one-third of whom were domestic servants and some portion of whom were children.
• In December 2008, Congress passed the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which was signed by then President George W. Bush.
• In 2007, the U.S. Senate designated Jan. 11 as the National Day of Human Trafficking Awareness.
• Christian recording artists like Natalie Grant and Sara Groves are increasingly using their music to highlight the issue of human trafficking.

Why it matters

As various forms of human trafficking have become more prevalent and international, and as more children have become involved, more people are recognizing that prostitutes are often victims forced into the trade directly or through desperate circumstances over which they had little control. Their rescue and rehabilitation have become top priorities. Prostitution and slavery are addressed in Christian, Jewish and Muslim scriptures, and many people of faith believe that fighting human trafficking is a moral and religious imperative.

For more information on this topic please visit Religion Link

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Danielle Elizabeth Tumminio, State of Formation

Here’s a news headline for you: The trial begins in Phoenix today for Faleh Hassan Almaleki, the Iraqi immigrant accused of killing his daughter for becoming too Westernized. The prosecution’s argument goes like this: Almaleki ran over his 20 year old daughter with a Jeep Cherokee because she was abandoning their traditional Muslim values, having moved in with her boyfriend’s family.

Several months ago in England a similar news headline ran when Harry Potter actress Afshan Azad went into hiding after her father and brother beat her, called her a whore, dragged her by the hair, and attempted to murder her for dating a Hindu. She has yet to re-emerge.

Sadly, these news stories aren’t so new at all because we hear frequently—too frequently—about violence against women, especially in the Islamic world. Of course, not all Muslims condone violence against women, but the kind of behavior exhibited in these crimes is based in certain Qur’anic interpretations and might go without question in some Muslim countries: In the United Arab Emirates, for instance, it is legal for a husband to beat his wife, so long as the beating does not leave any bruises or cuts; in Iran, the law says women can be stoned for committing adultery, as documented Freidoune Sahebjam’s book-turned-film, The Stoning of Soraya M. and the ongoing case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. And, of course, there is Saudi Arabia, with its strict provisions for gender segregation and male drivers. Recently some clerics in this country issued a fatwa encouraging women to feed breast milk to grown men, thereby allowing them to interact with the her family without violating segregation laws.

In other words, violence against women justified by Islamic law is common—what is newsworthy here is that the consequences of these Muslim policies are playing out in traditionally non-Muslim countries. They are violations rooted in Muslim values that bear fruit in the heart of the traditionally Christian West, in the United Kingdom and it’s younger cousin, the United States. These are crimes straight from the tomatoes in that diversity salad bowl or from the copper and silver mixing in that global melting pot.

So how is the West to respond? One option is the growing movement amongst progressives advocating for plurality in the West. As Archbishop Rowan Williams so contentiously said in 2008, blending Western and Sharia law would be unavoidable, “If what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good.”

This kind of logic seems to be a panacea for cultural conflicts: Respect diversity! Allow for difference! But a panacea is not a solution, especially not when one culture has policies that allow for such widespread discrimination—or in this case, not when both cultures do. After all, the Western world hasn’t exactly earned its gold star for women’s rights either, not when 25% of women are victims of domestic violence, equal pay for equal work remains a myth, and the (now former) president of Harvard says that women have inferior math skills. It may not be the same kind of discrimination, but it is discrimination nonetheless.

So maybe plurality is not, in fact, what we want. Maybe, for once, we should focus on what I will call monality, on a common ideal that that should be shared between people—in this case, that women should be valued, that they should have the freedom to be intimate with the person of their choosing, to work for an equal salary, to drive where they wish, to not be exploited for their vaginas or their breast milk.

Imagine a headline that read: Western and Muslim countries unite for women’s freedom.

That would be news.

The Reverend Danielle Elizabeth Tumminio is ordained in The Episcopal Church and has taught a variety of educational institutions, including Yale University. She is completing a doctoral degree in practical theology at Boston University, where she researches trauma and barrenness; she is also the author of “God and Harry at Yale: Faith and Fiction in the Classroom” (Unlocking Press, 2010).

• Share this on Facebook
• Email this to a friend?
• Share this on Reddit
• Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon
• Tweet This!
• Send this page to Print Friendly
• Digg this!
• Email this via Gmail

By Nilanjana S. Roy, New York Times

In the week before a prominent Pakistani politician was assassinated for questioning the country’s blasphemy laws, a news report from Erbil in northern Iraq underlined how laws of this nature can be used against women.

Thirteen Iraqi Kurdish women’s rights activists were accused by a prominent Muslim cleric of “blasphemy and demoralizing Kurdish society,” because of their work in promoting gender equality.

The women have filed a police case and reportedly fear for their lives. An accusation of blasphemy is not to be taken lightly, as Aasia Bibi knows.

For the past year, the name of this Christian woman, a laborer and mother of five children, has become synonymous with Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. In June 2008, Ms. Bibi had an altercation with other female laborers, all of them Muslim. The exchange began after Ms. Bibi fetched water, and some of the women refused to drink it because she was Christian. This led to heated talk on the subject of Christianity and Islam.

The exact words that led to Ms. Bibi’s prosecution under sections 295-B and C of the Pakistan Penal Code have not been disclosed. Since this was an accusation of blasphemy, to repeat the words would be to perpetuate blasphemy. But they were apparently enough to make her the first woman to be sentenced to death under this law.

Ms. Bibi is still in prison. Early last year, newspapers and human rights advocates said that she had been paraded in the streets and gang-raped in Nankana Sahib, a district in Punjab Province.

Last week, the blasphemy laws claimed a prominent victim. The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was assassinated by one of his bodyguards. Mr. Taseer’s assassin was showered with rose petals by crowds who approved of his act. Mr. Taseer had drawn much criticism in Pakistan for his defense of Ms. Bibi and his demand for changes to the blasphemy law.

At prayers last Friday, witnesses were quoted in newspapers as saying that the imam of the Sultan Masjid mosque in Karachi denounced another outspoken critic of the blasphemy laws, Sherry Rehman, a journalist and former minister of information and broadcasting, who has also called for revisions to the blasphemy law. According to the reports, the imam called Ms. Rehman a “kaafir” — an infidel — and “wajib-ul-qatl” — fit to be killed — in the course of his sermon.

The Pakistani novelist Kamila Shamsie notes blasphemy is considered unacceptable regardless of the gender of the accused. But the prohibition is part of a larger web of laws and practices that have served to restrict women’s rights.

“It was only a very few years ago that the Hudood Ordinance — among the most misogynistic laws ever made — were de-fanged, though it was impossible to overturn them because the right threw up such a stink,” she wrote in an e-mail, referring to the 1979 statute in Pakistan intended to reinforce Shariah law that led to many women who brought accusations of rape being prosecuted for extramarital sex. The 2006 Women’s Protection Bill transferred rape to the civil code. “A rise in power of the religious right invariably sees a decline in women’s rights.”

“What has become very clear these last few days,” she added, “is that if anyone invokes ‘Islam’ as reason for any action there are very few people willing to argue the point — even those who disagree are often silenced through fear. This is more true than ever in the aftermath of the Taseer assassination (or rather, the lionizing of his assassin). So those who invoke Islamic law as reason to keep women oppressed will be further emboldened.”

For Asian women, the consequences of questioning or speaking out against faith can be particularly sharp. In the early 1990s, the Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen’s novel “Lajja” was banned, and she was forced into exile for her apparently blasphemous call for revisions to the Koran. Women’s rights groups in Bangladesh noted that the attacks on Ms. Nasreen by Islamic fundamentalists happened against a backdrop of rising intolerance and an increase in honor crimes against women, including the caning and stoning of women who were seen to have transgressed Shariah law.

In Britain, performances of “Behzti,” a play by Gurpreet Bhatti set in a gudwara, or Sikh temple, that explored sexual violence within the British Sikh community were shut down shortly after its opening in 2004. The play was not performed until 2010, six years after Ms. Bhatti had received abduction and death threats from other Sikhs.

“Religion is assumed to be the domain of men, and women do not have much role in it,” the Indian feminist writer and publisher Urvashi Butalia said in an interview.

“But women generally do not have the right to question religion — this is something men hold on to tightly, and it’s not only in Islam. Look at all those so-called honor killings in India — all of them under the guise of religious sanction and tradition.”

This is the context against which Aasia Bibi’s case should be understood.

Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have been used to persecute ethnic and religious minorities and to shut down free speech in general. But, as Ms. Butalia noted, there is a difference even here for women like Ms. Bibi and now Ms. Rehman.

“While the threat of death or excommunication hangs over all of those who dare to question religion, men or women, as in Taslima’s case, or Aasia’s case, or indeed Rushdie’s case,” she said, referring to the British writer Salman Rushdie, whose novel “The Satanic Verses” drew death threats, “for women there is also the additional threat of sexual violence, and, while they remain alive, sexual stigma and targeting.”

“If Aasia was let off, she would have to live all her life with the tag of ‘bad’ or ‘blasphemous’ woman,” she said. “The threat of rape — the traditional weapon of humiliation — is very real indeed.”