Judge Barrett belongs to a religious cult in which decisions are made by all male "heads" including one's husband. Does this mean that Mr. Barrett will decide his wife's decisions on the Supreme Court? Should he be interviewed before the Senate acts?
1 comment:
"X belongs to a religion in which decisions are made by all male "heads" including one's husband."
Scrutiny should apply in all directions. I have read multiple translations of the Qurʾān, they all have a patriarchal foundation. There is a certain amount of equal, as long as they are separate. As in puritanical New England, seating in church was not co-ed, the modern mosque has designated sections for the sexes. It ends not there.
There are laws on what a woman can and can not participate in during menses. There are male edicts on just about every aspect of a woman's life. Prime example being the dress codes. Which brings us to the re-writing of by-laws of the House of Representatives, so that a certain newly elected official could wear her patriarchal mandated public attire. Should not we wonder if she is not subject to his oversight?
The sticky wicket of religion has too long beset humanity with superstition and layers of patricentric control sold as liberation. We were once served by spirituality that helped our existential angst that there is no meaning to life. So, instead of going mad, we decided there must be a meaning, we are too crude to understand it. Therefore, something much greater than us created us, and it's purpose in having created us should resolve our need for purpose.
That worked well for nomad, but not so much for the Warrior King, hell bent on building the biggest City-State. Enter organised religion. We have been on a hampster wheel of inculcation and misinformation ever since.
If you really want to dive into the Big Sur of where we zigged instead of zagging, Inter-Library Loan thie:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/denial-of-death/oclc/658905
Post a Comment