Now that may cause a downright sigh of relief to many men and women; that is, if you are a Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, type; you know, "Focus on the Family", Family.
org, "700 Club", "moral majority", et cetera.
If by chance you are, consider this a confirmation of your beliefs and let's part friends.
God bless you.
As for my devout catholic friends, the Rick Santorum folks, again the rest of this little opinion piece simply substantiates what you believe to be true: God put Man before Woman.
So you might just as well get while the gettin's good and click your confirmation outta here.
Come to think about it, anyone who is deeply committed to the beliefs and teachings of an institutional religion (i.
, Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, Hinduism, Buddhism), should really think about finding their way out of here.
To-da-loo! Are they gone? Let's give them a few more seconds ...
I think it's safe.
It's just us Unitarians, agnostics, atheists, and a few curious liberal Anglican types left.
So I told a little white lie.
I'm not about to substantiate anything those guys think.
I needed to cleverly weed them out, lest I should be hunted down and burned.
First, I need to go through a litany of boring truths based on all those books written by ...
God is always male; therefore, right off the bat, women are in trouble.
God made man in his image.
God created a woman to help a man, using the rib from that first wacky guy, Adam.
In this regard, women should actually be forever grateful.
At least he used a rib and didn't use something else (you know what I'm talking about).
God had one son (no daughter to dote over).
God gave instructions to only men.
Therefore, men wrote all the various religious team playbooks: Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, and Vedas.
God apparently made sure that guys got all the important roles in teaching religion.
And he made it darn clear to teach that women were to have a submissive role.
It is inescapable.
God was across the religious spectrum a sexist! Consistently! I don't know.
Something just seems wrong with that.
I mean, don't get me wrong.
It's not bad for us guys.
But it strikes me odd that this would be the case, especially if one takes into account who usually misbehaves and acts up the most.
So why is that? Why all the maleness around God? Well, leave it to me to have a theory.
It isn't pretty and I am actually troubled by my own conclusions.
The theory is simple.
The premise that God created man in his own image was close; the words were just in the wrong order.
I think that man created God in his own image.
Of course the guys cooking this up always maintained thatGod came to them first; no differently than folks, claiming to have been abducted by aliens, maintain that their abductors beamed them up without the good galactic grace of obtaining permission first.
And the messages men received from God, wink-wink, made sure women remained a subservient lot by claiming to be instructed by the main man himself to maintain power over them.
There are two plausible conclusions one might reach from this theory.
One leaves room for a God.
The other ...
well not so good for God.
One possibility is that the notion "man created God in his own image" doesn't preclude that God exists.
Men in their irascible zest to control things took advantage of their power and simply got much of it wrong.
We do it all the time; the most recent bugaboo being Iraq.
God had nothing to do with their written revelations, or possibly more accurately, hallucinations.
God was probably too busy patching up a black hole gone bad or something.
The good news is that one could deduce that God did and does exist.
God was just preoccupied in another part of the Universe.
Unitarians should be quite content with this news, and any liberal Anglicans still reading this should be breathing a great sigh of relief.
It is the second possibility that intrigues me, gives me pause to think, and frankly troubles me.
Besides an innate fondness for enjoying greasy food and stopping to look at train wrecks, humans have a need to ask the questions "why" and "how" and ponder the notion of "purpose".
This ability to contemplate is truly unique about the human condition.
In our pursuit for answers, it strikes me that the conclusions evolve no differently from the human species itself.
It's not a stretch to view beliefs, faith and religions as part of the evolutionary intellectual ride in this natural desire to answer the tough questions.
In the absence of science and educated societies, it doesn't surprise me that men concocted the idea of a single male creator and in so doing answered the "how", "why" and "purpose" questions using male centric solutions, such as: Creationism, the heavens revolve around the flat earth, Adam and Eve, "man and wife", blah-blah-blah.
The resulting beliefs and faiths worked wonders for men for centuries; that is, until science started to prove otherwise, and women started to ask "why" and to ponder the "purpose" assigned to them by men.
It's now time to pay the piper.
With the "hows" and "whys" under attack, belief systems are suddenly being challenged, something most folks, especially people in power, instinctively resist.
This resistance is clearly evident by the Intelligent Design battle, the Supreme Court nominee fights, and this recent call to traditional family values and Marriage Amendment preoccupation.
Evolution in human thought sure seems painful.
But does it really have to be? One could look at an overturned belief as an opportunity to grow and move ahead, rather than to dig in and hold on.
I guess losing power in the end trumps that though.
Well where will all this take us? My inclination is to think that in a few short centuries, religions will be gone.
Science will unveil more of the "hows".
As for the "whys" and "purpose", they will be more universally understood by "humanist" thought.
It seems like a nice evolutionary place to go.
Of course, this all rests on one condition: the threat to religious power doesn't destroy us first.
Remember, we don't play with guns and arrows anymore, we play with the big boys--Nukes! So let's say this plays out in two hundred years as I am suggesting.
I am still troubled.
While I need to kick this scenario around a bit more (after all, like any idea it needs a good poking, I'm feeling more and more drawn to this concept of evolution of thought.
But there is a part of me (possibly from being brought up a Baptist) that does not want to blow it with the Big Guy, in the event I'm wrong about all this.
That is my dilemma.
I mean, if there is life after death, I want to be in on it.
Yeah, I know.
How self serving? How pathetic? Oh well ...
let me try something lame here.
"So listen up God.
You gave me a brain for thinking, right? And that's all I'm doing here; just thinking, maybe not smartly.
Don't take it personally.
And here is what I'm thinking.
If you want me to stick with ya, ya gotta give me a sign.
As you can tell, I have an aversion to faith and belief.
Remember that chap, Buckminster Fuller? You gave him a pretty good brain there; much better than mine by the way.
Well he once said, "Belief is when someone else does the thinking.
" I think you want me to buy into that and do my own thinking.
I need proof of purchase, and frankly between you and me, I see no proof of anything I'd want to be a part of.
So email me for God's sake (um that was a slip, sorry).
So email me for Pete's sake.
Let's have a little chat.
As you know smarty robes, I have plenty of time.
" [note: If there is a God and he's a he, I'm betting on him having an ense-say of umor-hay! If she's a she, well I'm pretty sure this little piece will get me some beaucoup heaven dollars!]