NationStates Jolt Archive

As anyone read A Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood (a feminist Candian novelist)? I did it for AS Level last year. Now for those of you who have read it, you will know what I am talking about and can probably draw up the comparisons yourselves. But for those illiterate philistines among us, let me explain the premise of the novel. I am giving the basic storyline here: the novel itslef is actually presented through the eyes of a 'Handmaid' and is done in a far more fragmented style than what I am about to put below.

In near future America, the President and the entire of the government (including the two legislative bodies whose names I forget) are massacred in a military coup that is blamed on Islamic fundamentalists. Families are told to remain calm and wait for elections. In the mean time, the military installs itself in power. However the military soon shows its true colours, declaring itself as a right wing, fundamentalist Christian sect. They rename America after the biblical land of Gilead. The army is given a biblical name as are ethnic minorities (black people are renamed the children of Ham).

Their first action (and the action with which the novel concerns itself) is to remove females from all offices of power and authority. Soldiers arrive and force women to give up their jobs. Female property is given to their closest male relatives. All their money is siezed from their bank accounts and granted to the male relatives.

Then they start haning members of other religions. Jews are exported to Israel. Catholics and Quakers are all hung or shot. Doctors who practised abortion are shot. Gays are shot. The army

It is at about this point, the heroine of the novel (whose name is never mentioned) decides with her husband (who is a divorcee) to run to Canada with their three year old daughter. As they escape, they are caught on the border. Her husband is never seen again and her daughter is taken away from her and given to someone else as she is declared an unfit mother.

Now in this dystopian world, the Western fertiltiy rates have been decreasing rapidly due to over exposure to toxic chemicals. The Gilead solution is simple: to find all fertile females and turn them into Handmaids (for those of you who want the biblical reference, I believe it was to do with the wife of Job and her handmaid. Job's wife was infertile so she volunteered her maid to have the baby for her). These Handmaids are given three chances to give birth to a perfectly healthy baby (any abnormalities and the babies are killed). They are placed into homes of high ranking officials where they are expected to produce children for the family. They are deprived of their names and are simply called by the names of their masters (in the book the character is given the name Offred or OF FRED). In the society, women are consigned to the inferior role. They are forbidden to read or to write or to work (unless it is household). Once the Handmaids are given birth they are moved on and the child is given to the family of the officer. If the Handmaid fails her job then she is sent to to be an Unwoman, a person whose job it is to clear up all the toxic waste. Offred's mother was once a feminst and so she is declared an Unwoman.

Then they install an effective police state, with their own secret police called the Eyes who hunt down any subversives.

However the relgius overtone is in reality just a shame. Churches are closed and turned into state museums. Prayers are not said by vicars but by machines who churn them out. Women who are attractive are sent to be high class prostitutes in unofficially endorsed bordellos.

Of course this is all dystopian fiction. But is it the way America is heading as it grows more and more fundamentalist and right wing?

Could be. Though Margaret Atwood isn't the best SF writer out there, to be sure. She just dabbles in the genre, after all. It was all a little ham-handed, wasn't it? Not nearly as frightening as what's really going on out there today.

While I don't think that it would EVER get this extreme, certain elements could possibly "come true" so to speak.

**As of now, these are purely hypothetical, but are what I see as somewhat possible considering the current trends**

For instance, the government, though it cannot outright outlaw women from holding offices or jobs, can make it difficult for them to, such as passing laws that would require women to go through physicals regularly, at their own expense (because women are prone to discuss their physical problems more than men, they are considered to have more), or making all child care go private, and refusing to regulate it ( I don't know of any reasonable mother who would leave their child in an unregulated, uncertified daycare). Possible reasoning for this: A woman needs to stay home, since health problems eat into her work performance, and mothers need to stay with their kids, because businesses don't like it when mom's have to leave work early or can't work an extra shift because they have to pick up their kids. A woman's role in the workforce could easily be further complicated by outlawing abortion, and not requiring insurance to cover birthcontrol (and refusing to hand it out free in clinics). Thus, for a woman with a reasonable sex life, it would be nearly impossible to escape pregnancy without resorting to drastic measures, or going without sex completely. This would make it to where MORE women would "feel it in their best interest" to stay home, since more would be having young children.

While I don't see the government taking babies from women who can have them and giving them to women who can't, I do see them (in the event of a fertility crisis) regulating pregnancies. Women who have miscarraiges would be forced to report them, or go to jail (an actual bill introduced in the Virginia Legislature < http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB1677 >). Women found to be viable would be reimbursed for the number of children they have (Hitler did this). Women must give birth in hospitals, so the child can be checked and documented, etc. Outlawing abortion and restricting access to birth control would fall into this as well.

Here is what I think WON'T happen:

Seizing women's assets and giving them to her closest male relative.
Forcing women who are unable to bear children and Feminists to clean up
nuclear waste
Forcing women to have children by men who are not their husbands

But hey, the book hinged all of this on a military takeover, so who knows? It could happen, but I don't see it happening within reason or in the near future.

I read the book, btw. It was a wonderful piece of literature, and really makes you think.

As anyone read A Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood (a feminist Candian novelist)?

Not read this yet... but if you like this 'kind' of work, you might want to read "Singer from the Sea" (fairly similar concept) and "The Gate to Women's Country" (an interesting alternative look at this 'kind' of idea).

Both by Sheri S Tepper. (In my opinion, possibly the greatest fantasy and science fiction authoress around).

"Gate..." is the better of the two books, I think... but if you like her stuff, she also deals with various aspects of religion, etc. (Personal favourite is "Raising the Stones").

But is it the way America is heading as it grows more and more fundamentalist and right wing?

That's pretty funny actually, and a good way to ID someone young or new to politics.

In the day when it is becoming illegal to pray on a public space or to name a holiday (Holy day) after a religious event, you should not be worried about the propaganda that threatens you with unrestrained religious repression in the U.S.

In an age when the 2 of the apparent front runners for possible nomination for the U.S. Presidency, you should not be worried of the repression of women.

Scare tactics, scare tactics, scare tactics.

BTW, I read the book, I think it was about 22 years ago, might have been a little less.

Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?


The Virginia legislation was a ham handed attempt to draw up law to deal with an apparent increase in the number of women killing their newborn babies. Other than a birth certificate (Certificate of live birth) there is nothing that tracks if a miscarriage or birth occurs occurs except the indirect method of checking on medical records. But, this is protected privacy and one shouldn't go "snooping". So the legislation was born by a percieved necessity, just poorly executed.

The concept was; The pregnancy would result then, as a live birth, registered miscarriage, abortion or stillbirth. Any other end of pregnancy may be a murder of a newborn, and thus investigated.

It was quickly removed. Each year, the meeting legislature makes lots of interesting bills which are then voted down, or removed by the submitter. This one was removed by the submitter.

But is it the way America is heading as it grows more and more fundamentalist and right wing?

That's pretty funny actually, and a good way to ID someone young or new to politics.

In the day when it is becoming illegal to pray on a public space or to name a holiday (Holy day) after a religious event, you should not be worried about the propaganda that threatens you with unrestrained religious repression in the U.S.

In an age when the 2 of the apparent front runners for possible nomination for the U.S. Presidency, you should not be worried of the repression of women.

Scare tactics, scare tactics, scare tactics.

BTW, I read the book, I think it was about 22 years ago, might have been a little less.

Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?

Or, alternatively.. perhaps a realistic look... the US DOES seem to be heading into progressively more religious, and right-wing, politics... and away from 'secular' or 'separate' government.

Perhaps the 'holy day' thing is part of a backlash? People have a habit of kicking back against oppression.

Other point: "2 of the apparent front runners for possible nomination for the U.S. Presidency". You say that like it is something special... like ti should be considered an acheivement to even CONSIDER a female for office. Of course, neither of the two most prominent female candidates are even close to being nominated... and neither is anybody else, and won't be for years.

If two females are STILL in the running 3 years from now... THAT might be worthy of comment.

To be honest, I don't reckon government could ever get that fundamentally religious. Too much of the public, at least in the western world is made up of atheists. If some religious nut started telling me what to do, I certainly wouldn't go without a fight. By the way, martial law is not by any means an exclusively right-wing phenomenom.

Or, alternatively.. perhaps a realistic look... the US DOES seem to be heading into progressively more religious, and right-wing, politics... and away from 'secular' or 'separate' government.

Perhaps the 'holy day' thing is part of a backlash? People have a habit of kicking back against oppression.

Other point: "2 of the apparent front runners for possible nomination for the U.S. Presidency". You say that like it is something special... like ti should be considered an acheivement to even CONSIDER a female for office. Of course, neither of the two most prominent female candidates are even close to being nominated... and neither is anybody else, and won't be for years.

If two females are STILL in the running 3 years from now... THAT might be worthy of comment.

I disagree that the U.S. does seem to be moving more progressively religious when compared to anything more than the last few years. When I graduated high schoool, we actually had the ability to say prayer at graduation.
it was deemed illegal soon afterwards. The u.S. is becoming more and more secular, with social repression of Christians and Jewish very in vogue. While no significant laws are being passed, active judicial fiats are making it difficult for those that are religious to be so publically.
The Holy Day comment is a display of how the term holiday, originated and now it is becoming illegal and socially unacceptable to call Christmas, Easter, etc., by their religious names.

Do not put words into my mouth in stating that it was "special" to have 2 female candidates. I am stating that it is quite a good indicator that no current threat of female oppression is imminent when they are the 2 current front runners for nominations, no matter where in the process we are.

Edit: BTW, I am not religious, nor attend Church regularly. The name of my country refers to an HBO show called Carnivale (http://www.hbo.com/carnivale/?ntrack_para1=leftnav_category0_show2). The evil Brother Justin's radio show is called "Church of the Air". I do live in the "Bible Belt" in the Southern U.S. and have significant firsthand knowledge of the level of "Religious Oppression" and secularity.

As anyone read A Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood (a feminist Candian novelist)? I did it for AS Level last year. Now for those of you who have read it, you will know what I am talking about and can probably draw up the comparisons yourselves. But for those illiterate philistines among us, let me explain the premise of the novel. I am giving the basic storyline here: the novel itslef is actually presented through the eyes of a 'Handmaid' and is done in a far more fragmented style than what I am about to put below.

In near future America, the President and the entire of the government (including the two legislative bodies whose names I forget) are massacred in a military coup that is blamed on Islamic fundamentalists. Families are told to remain calm and wait for elections. In the mean time, the military installs itself in power. However the military soon shows its true colours, declaring itself as a right wing, fundamentalist Christian sect. They rename America after the biblical land of Gilead. The army is given a biblical name as are ethnic minorities (black people are renamed the children of Ham).

Their first action (and the action with which the novel concerns itself) is to remove females from all offices of power and authority. Soldiers arrive and force women to give up their jobs. Female property is given to their closest male relatives. All their money is siezed from their bank accounts and granted to the male relatives.

Then they start haning members of other religions. Jews are exported to Israel. Catholics and Quakers are all hung or shot. Doctors who practised abortion are shot. Gays are shot. The army

It is at about this point, the heroine of the novel (whose name is never mentioned) decides with her husband (who is a divorcee) to run to Canada with their three year old daughter. As they escape, they are caught on the border. Her husband is never seen again and her daughter is taken away from her and given to someone else as she is declared an unfit mother.

Now in this dystopian world, the Western fertiltiy rates have been decreasing rapidly due to over exposure to toxic chemicals. The Gilead solution is simple: to find all fertile females and turn them into Handmaids (for those of you who want the biblical reference, I believe it was to do with the wife of Job and her handmaid. Job's wife was infertile so she volunteered her maid to have the baby for her). These Handmaids are given three chances to give birth to a perfectly healthy baby (any abnormalities and the babies are killed). They are placed into homes of high ranking officials where they are expected to produce children for the family. They are deprived of their names and are simply called by the names of their masters (in the book the character is given the name Offred or OF FRED). In the society, women are consigned to the inferior role. They are forbidden to read or to write or to work (unless it is household). Once the Handmaids are given birth they are moved on and the child is given to the family of the officer. If the Handmaid fails her job then she is sent to to be an Unwoman, a person whose job it is to clear up all the toxic waste. Offred's mother was once a feminst and so she is declared an Unwoman.

Then they install an effective police state, with their own secret police called the Eyes who hunt down any subversives.

However the relgius overtone is in reality just a shame. Churches are closed and turned into state museums. Prayers are not said by vicars but by machines who churn them out. Women who are attractive are sent to be high class prostitutes in unofficially endorsed bordellos.

Of course this is all dystopian fiction. But is it the way America is heading as it grows more and more fundamentalist and right wing?


You have to understand the base difference between an allegory, and reality.
Ms. Atwood concocted a social and poltical system that isn't compatible with either western civilization, or Christian Fundamentalism-essentially, she created an improbable structure with little direct knowledge of the right-wing fundies, based on her own prejudices.
Unlike the Left, if a right-winger has an affair, HE loses lots and lots of political capital. When was the last time Jimmy Swaggart had any influence? Yah-it was before he was caught picking up a hooker.
My left-leaning friends were only slightly noisier about it than my right-wing fundie 'friends' were-the Left were amused, the right were ashamed...and angry. Not that he was 'caught', but that he did it.

It's a disconnect that people get when they polarize-the inability to see the other side's point of view at all, much less as a valid choice.
Resistance to Ms.Atwood's proposed 'America' would more likely come from the rank-and-file of the Right, including the "Christian" right, than from the peace-and-love left. With the exception of a few psychopaths (who, lucky for the rest of us, tend to get caught doing something incredibly naughty before they are able to do more than a small amount of damage), the fundies are bound by some rather antiquated ideas about 'honour', including the idea that you don't keep a mistress on the side if you're married-even when she's sterile.
(She being the Wife, not hte mistress).

There would have to be a massive shift in the Right towards Amorality or Immorality (as defined within the group itself) before "A Handmaid's Tale" could even approach reality-see, first you have to dispose of the idea that Marraige is a joining in the eyes of god...

I disagree that the U.S. does seem to be moving more progressively religious when compared to anything more than the last few years. When I graduated high schoool, we actually had the ability to say prayer at graduation.
it was deemed illegal soon afterwards. The u.S. is becoming more and more secular, with social repression of Christians and Jewish very in vogue. While no significant laws are being passed, active judicial fiats are making it difficult for those that are religious to be so publically.
The Holy Day comment is a display of how the term holiday, originated and now it is becoming illegal and socially unacceptable to call Christmas, Easter, etc., by their religious names.

Do not put words into my mouth in stating that it was "special" to have 2 female candidates. I am stating that it is quite a good indicator that no current threat of female oppression is imminent when they are the 2 current front runners for nominations, no matter where in the process we are.

Except, of course... that governmental 'recognition' of, for example Christmas, asserts superiority over... say Diwali... or Yule... the festival from which it took it's date.

I disagree... I wasn't trying to 'put words in your mouth', but you have just re-made the point... your perception is that there is "no current threat of female oppression... when they are the 2 current front runners for nominations". Ignoring the fact that there are no runners for nomination yet... and also the fact that there are dozens of men also being considered front-runners for the same nominations. It is 'token'.

Personally - I believe that an individual SHOULD have the right to pray at school, for example... even in the case of a presentation to an audience.

I do NOT think that a school-representative should be allowed to openly pray in school... because that is setting a recognised acceptable behaviour, which discriminates against and pressures, those of different faith.

I certainly do not think that a school or government official, should be allowed to LEAD prayer in a public place - like a school.

If a teacher wishes to lead prayer, he should do so in a venue that specialises in just such behaviours - i.e. a Church.

Personally - I think it is a travesty that (non-christian) immigrants to the United States are forced to bow to somebody else's god.

The bias is very much there that the US is a 'christianised' society... and, under Bush - it is becoming overtly more so.

I read the first part, then got bored. I thought it would be smuttier.(Just kidding!)

Although I had thought that it was just that America sort of collasped in on itself shortly after the coup, and it was just this region of the country (presumably in the south) that had changed it's name to Gilead, ect.

Guess I should have read the whole thing.

Maybe I will someday.

It's just that the guys at the bookstore found out I'm not homeless, and so I can't read books for free anymore.

I disagree that the U.S. does seem to be moving more progressively religious when compared to anything more than the last few years. When I graduated high schoool, we actually had the ability to say prayer at graduation.
it was deemed illegal soon afterwards. The u.S. is becoming more and more secular, with social repression of Christians and Jewish very in vogue. While no significant laws are being passed, active judicial fiats are making it difficult for those that are religious to be so publically.
The Holy Day comment is a display of how the term holiday, originated and now it is becoming illegal and socially unacceptable to call Christmas, Easter, etc., by their religious names.

Do not put words into my mouth in stating that it was "special" to have 2 female candidates. I am stating that it is quite a good indicator that no current threat of female oppression is imminent when they are the 2 current front runners for nominations, no matter where in the process we are.

Edit: BTW, I am not religious, nor attend Church regularly. The name of my country refers to an HBO show called Carnivale (http://www.hbo.com/carnivale/?ntrack_para1=leftnav_category0_show2). The evil Brother Justin's radio show is called "Church of the Air". I do live in the "Bible Belt" in the Southern U.S. and have significant firsthand knowledge of the level of "Religious Oppression" and secularity.

Oooh, only seen one episode of Carnivale.. but thought it was fantastic!

I also live in the Bible Belt, and came to it from (what I guess is called...) a much more 'liberal' society...

Did you know America's national phrase thing only became "In god we trust." in the fities? It was to counter the ardent secularism and atheism of the communists.

It used to be something in latin, I think it was something like "Usa cayant taych disis"

Except, of course... that governmental 'recognition' of, for example Christmas, asserts superiority over... say Diwali... or Yule... the festival from which it took it's date.

I disagree... I wasn't trying to 'put words in your mouth', but you have just re-made the point... your perception is that there is "no current threat of female oppression... when they are the 2 current front runners for nominations". Ignoring the fact that there are no runners for nomination yet... and also the fact that there are dozens of men also being considered front-runners for the same nominations. It is 'token'.

Personally - I believe that an individual SHOULD have the right to pray at school, for example... even in the case of a presentation to an audience.

I do NOT think that a school-representative should be allowed to openly pray in school... because that is setting a recognised acceptable behaviour, which discriminates against and pressures, those of different faith.

I certainly do not think that a school or government official, should be allowed to LEAD prayer in a public place - like a school.

If a teacher wishes to lead prayer, he should do so in a venue that specialises in just such behaviours - i.e. a Church.

Personally - I think it is a travesty that (non-christian) immigrants to the United States are forced to bow to somebody else's god.

The bias is very much there that the US is a 'christianised' society... and, under Bush - it is becoming overtly more so.

I have seen no significant examples of the repression of non-Christian religions of which you speak. I have seen more examples of repression of Christians by Christians, such as the long running Baptist vs. Catholic problems. The only Catholic President was shot and killed (he also happened to be only the second of Irish descent). I do see Muslims on street corners actively soliciting cash for their church without hassle. I was a "best man" in a Buddhist wedding.

I think your information is coming from too few sources. Compare the current secular/religious status of the U.S. to what it was 15, 20, 40 and 60 years ago and review you thesis that the U.S. is becoming more Religious and religiously closed.

Sorry, credible candidates for the leader of the country is as good as it gets, especially as compared to the type of repression we are discussing

Oooh, only seen one episode of Carnivale.. but thought it was fantastic!

I also live in the Bible Belt, and came to it from (what I guess is called...) a much more 'liberal' society...

If you have the opportunity to view it from the beginning you will find it one of the more literate shows in a long time.

BTW, I came to where I am in order that my wife can attend Med school. I have lived in several different countries and have traveled extensively in Asia. I moved to this area after quite a few years in Los Angeles and San Diego.

I have seen no significant examples of the repression of non-Christian religions of which you speak. I have seen more examples of repression of Christians by Christians, such as the long running Baptist vs. Catholic problems. The only Catholic President was shot and killed (he also happened to be only the second of Irish descent). I do see Muslims on street corners actively soliciting cash for their church without hassle. I was a "best man" in a Buddhist wedding.

I think your information is coming from too few sources. Compare the current secular/religious status of the U.S. to what it was 15, 20, 40 and 60 years ago and review you thesis that the U.S. is becoming more Religious and religiously closed.

Sorry, credible candidates for the leader of the country is as good as it gets, especially as compared to the type of repression we are discussing

You see no evidence of 'repression' by Christians?

Try getting citizenship, if you are an Atheist.

Try posting the Wiccan Rede on a courthouse.

Which religions do you think are favoured by Bush's "Faith Based" policies?

Did you know America's national phrase thing only became "In god we trust." in the fities? It was to counter the ardent secularism and atheism of the communists.

It used to be something in latin, I think it was something like "Usa cayant taych disis"

The phrase "In God We Trust." was first used on U.S. coins in 1864.

You see no evidence of 'repression' by Christians?

Try getting citizenship, if you are an Atheist.

Try posting the Wiccan Rede on a courthouse.

Which religions do you think are favoured by Bush's "Faith Based" policies?

Ok, I have not had the opportunity to see the problem of Atheists and citizenship. I do have friends that are other religions and have had no undo hardship in becoming citizens. They are ordinary people and have no political connections nor any thing that would help them grease wheels. If you can point me to documentation, I will use it to reevaluate my position here.

On the Rede, note the difficiulty in allowing the Old Testament 10 Commandments to be posted there, all are equally repressed on that point.

Other than the assumptions, I have not looked into what was actually provided by the "Faith Based" programs.
Again, if you can point me to what was actually provided, in inequal portions, I will reevaluate my spot. However, I am aware of a significant # of "non-faith based" programsthat have been in existance for a long time, and with significantly more funds.

Ok, I have not had the opportunity to see the problem of Atheists and citizenship. I do have friends that are other religions and have had no undo hardship in becoming citizens. They are ordinary people and have no political connections nor any thing that would help them grease wheels. If you can point me to documentation, I will use it to reevaluate my position here.

On the Rede, note the difficiulty in allowing the Old Testament 10 Commandments to be posted there, all are equally repressed on that point.

Other than the assumptions, I have not looked into what was actually provided by the "Faith Based" programs.
Again, if you can point me to what was actually provided, in inequal portions, I will reevaluate my spot. However, I am aware of a significant # of "non-faith based" programsthat have been in existance for a long time, and with significantly more funds.

The point I was making, about citizenship, is that you have to swear the Oath of Alliegance... in order to become a citizen... regardless of your religion, etc.

So - the Atheist, the Hindu, the Muslim... all are required to swear fealty fo the Christian 'god', just to get the right to stay.

Regarding the 10 Commandments... I can show you civic buildings that prominently display the 10 commandments. Can you show me that same for the Wiccan Rede?

The phrase "In God We Trust." was first used on U.S. coins in 1864.

but it was only included in the pledge in the 1950s

The phrase "In God We Trust." was first used on U.S. coins in 1864.

That's great, but like he said, it only became our national motto in 1956.

The phrase "In God We Trust." was first used on U.S. coins in 1864.

I think, what was being referred to - was the addition of "In God We Trust" on PAPER money, and the corresponding change of the US 'motto':

"Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

That is part of my objection - that, and the addition of "Under God" into the Pledge.

"The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." That the nation, constitutionally speaking, was in fact dedicated to the opposite proposition seemed to escape the president".

Thus - in direct response to the 'Atheism' of The Soviet Bloc, US politicians deliberately made the US a 'Christianised' nation.

The point I was making, about citizenship, is that you have to swear the Oath of Alliegance... in order to become a citizen... regardless of your religion, etc.

So - the Atheist, the Hindu, the Muslim... all are required to swear fealty fo the Christian 'god', just to get the right to stay.

Regarding the 10 Commandments... I can show you civic buildings that prominently display the 10 commandments. Can you show me that same for the Wiccan Rede?

Hm, I have not read the Oath of Allegiance lately. Don't know if it requires fealty to a God. Then agin, that would require a different thread with the purpose of defining "God". I do know that the founding documents do not define "God" and that would be another matter. It would be a significantly different point if one was required to declare allegiance to Yahweh, Allah, the Oak, etc. The individual defines it himself (non-sex please) so a humanist can swear allegiance to humans, Gaiaists (?) to Earth, Buddhists to whomever (Buddha is not a god). Muslims to Allah, to each his own. That someone's assumption is the Christian "God" or Yahweh, is irrelevant.

I can show where the 10 commandments are being forcibly removed. That the U.S. law was based on Judeo-Christian principles is unmistakable. It is a product of the ancestry of the peoples that were casting themselves off of the British crown. You build on what you know.

Have the Wiccan's attempted to get the Rede prominently displayed on any public buildings?

I can show where the 10 commandments are being forcibly removed. That the U.S. law was based on Judeo-Christian principles is unmistakable. It is a product of the ancestry of the peoples that were casting themselves off of the British crown. You build on what you know.




Uhhh... ALL the western democracies have laws originating from Christianity. Only one appears to be turning back the clock.

Hm, I have not read the Oath of Allegiance lately. Don't know if it requires fealty to a God. Then agin, that would require a different thread with the purpose of defining "God". I do know that the founding documents do not define "God" and that would be another matter. It would be a significantly different point if one was required to declare allegiance to Yahweh, Allah, the Oak, etc. The individual defines it himself (non-sex please) so a humanist can swear allegiance to humans, Gaiaists (?) to Earth, Buddhists to whomever (Buddha is not a god). Muslims to Allah, to each his own. That someone's assumption is the Christian "God" or Yahweh, is irrelevant.

I can show where the 10 commandments are being forcibly removed. That the U.S. law was based on Judeo-Christian principles is unmistakable. It is a product of the ancestry of the peoples that were casting themselves off of the British crown. You build on what you know.

Have the Wiccan's attempted to get the Rede prominently displayed on any public buildings?

The Pledge requires the speaker to utter the words "One nation, under God".... which was finally approved by Eisenhower in a speech that leaves little doubt that the 'God' in question, is the commonly conceived 'god' of the United States... "the Creator"... the 'god' of the Bible.

The simple use of the word 'god' would be prejudice against Atheists... the fact that the written form of the Pledge is seen as under "God", shows a very profound tilt towards the Christian 'god'.

US Law isn't based on Judeo-Christian principles. It is based (mostly) on English Law - which is (mostly) dervided from thousands of years of Common Law... some of which may be similar to Judeo-Christian principles... or may have been influenced by it.

You have to remember, Law existed separately from Christianity of Judaism... and long before EITHER codified their 'principles'.

If US law is based on anything, it is based on British Common Law... to find the ROOT of that law - a better example (certainly, an earlier one) would be Babylonian Law - from which Mosaic Law was derived.

Uhhh... ALL the western democracies have laws originating from Christianity. Only one appears to be turning back the clock.

That's pretty general but I think you are a little harsh on Canada like that. Other than the slights against the French-Canadians in Quebec wanting seperation, I don't think it's that bad. Every country has it's foibles.

For the most part North America is pretty free from oppression as a whole. Much of the rest of the world is getting better.

That's pretty general but I think you are a little harsh on Canada like that. Other than the slights against the French-Canadians in Quebec wanting seperation, I don't think it's that bad. Every country has it's foibles.

For the most part North America is pretty free from oppression as a whole. Much of the rest of the world is getting better.

What slights against them? How did this come up? The root of the Quebec separation movement is about nationalism and that Quebec's legal system follows Napoleonic code whereas the rest of the country is based in Enlgish Common Law, as does the United States... NOT CHRISTIANITY at least in any direct sense.

The Pledge requires the speaker to utter the words "One nation, under God".... which was finally approved by Eisenhower in a speech that leaves little doubt that the 'God' in question, is the commonly conceived 'god' of the United States... "the Creator"... the 'god' of the Bible.

The simple use of the word 'god' would be prejudice against Atheists... the fact that the written form of the Pledge is seen as under "God", shows a very profound tilt towards the Christian 'god'.

US Law isn't based on Judeo-Christian principles. It is based (mostly) on English Law - which is (mostly) dervided from thousands of years of Common Law... some of which may be similar to Judeo-Christian principles... or may have been influenced by it.

You have to remember, Law existed separately from Christianity of Judaism... and long before EITHER codified their 'principles'.

If US law is based on anything, it is based on British Common Law... to find the ROOT of that law - a better example (certainly, an earlier one) would be Babylonian Law - from which Mosaic Law was derived.

Of course, and without the British system of Jurisprudence.

So, let's say we change the oath back because the godless communists ;) are no longer a threat. Nothing else changes, 10 commandment removal continues unabated but fought religiously :D . It remains illegal to maintain Christian originated Holidays in public places and Christians continue to be openly derided as sub-intellectual.

Where is your real suppression. I still don't see it. What would be necessary to prove an openness towards all religions and the non-religious?

Beside open discussion of placing women at the nations top post, what would assuage your fear of the impending social imprisoning of women.

I know, we'll make up lots of sitcoms where the men are always the inept bumblers and their condescending wives always rescue them. Yes, that will do it.

What slights against them? How did this come up? The root of the Quebec separation movement is about nationalism and that Quebec's legal system follows Napoleonic code whereas the rest of the country is based in Enlgish Common Law, as does the United States... NOT CHRISTIANITY at least in any direct sense.

Joke to cover your extreme generalization and a turnabout.

Joke to cover your extreme generalization and a turnabout.
If to say that western democracies have legal systems originating from Christianity is extremism so be it. It remains fact. As for the regressive trend in the United States, one need only point to the influences of Christian voting blocks as they attempt to rewrite history to convince everyone the US is the foyer of the Christian religion.

If to say that western democracies have legal systems originating from Christianity is extremism so be it. It remains fact. As for the regressive trend in the United States, one need only point to the influences of Christian voting blocks as they attempt to rewrite history to convince everyone the US is the foyer of the Christian religion.

Can you point me to detail on this? Some small group writing a book is simply not indicative of the whole of the U.S. suddenly declaring women as reproductive slaves.

I mean to say that your comment was too general and presented no real arguement, simply left handed accusations while being too wimpy to actually state to whom you intend your target. It states no detail to be supported nor refuted. It is posted below in it's entirety for easy review.

Uhhh... ALL the western democracies have laws originating from Christianity. Only one appears to be turning back the clock.

Can you point me to detail on this? Some small group writing a book is simply not indicative of the whole of the U.S. suddenly declaring women as reproductive slaves.

I mean to say that your comment was too general and presented no real arguement, simply left handed accusations while being too wimpy to actually state to whom you intend your target. It states no detail to be supported nor refuted. It is posted below in it's entirety for easy review.

Uhhh... ALL the western democracies have laws originating from Christianity. Only one appears to be turning back the clock.

I really don't have the time for this as I do have to work. For one, a president elected largely by religious conservatives who has for example proposed a constitutional same sex marriage ban and who is the commander in chief of one of the few modern militaries which bans homosexuals... ( I could go into the real reasons for this, aside from the convenient excuses, if I had more time). Also faith based initiatives which were made possible by federal branches under direct control of the president and therefore funded. It remains to be seen whether faith based is univesrally faith based or simply Chistian only. It appears to be the latter at this point.

It was the scariest book I ever read. Way scarier than anything Dean Koontz of Stephen King ever wrote.

That's because Koontz and King are bad writers. =D

As for Handmaid's Tale... I love everything about it. I read it in Year 11 with the option of doing the A/S exam a year early. There's so much more to it than if you just read it straight off. It's a novel which needs analysis for it's full potential to be released. I might read it again - Frankly though, it's a shame the topic has strayed away from Atwood, I was interested in that part... lol.

I did love the book.

Not read this yet... but if you like this 'kind' of work, you might want to read "Singer from the Sea" (fairly similar concept) and "The Gate to Women's Country" (an interesting alternative look at this 'kind' of idea).

Both by Sheri S Tepper. (In my opinion, possibly the greatest fantasy and science fiction authoress around).

"Gate..." is the better of the two books, I think... but if you like her stuff, she also deals with various aspects of religion, etc. (Personal favourite is "Raising the Stones").

I wish I'd have thought of "Gate"...I just finished reading it. Wonderful book...I'll have to read Singer from the Sea. Is that one of her new ones?

The point I was making, about citizenship, is that you have to swear the Oath of Alliegance... in order to become a citizen... regardless of your religion, etc.

So - the Atheist, the Hindu, the Muslim... all are required to swear fealty fo the Christian 'god', just to get the right to stay.

Regarding the 10 Commandments... I can show you civic buildings that prominently display the 10 commandments. Can you show me that same for the Wiccan Rede?

Funny thing is, if I would ever try to become a US citizen (getting likelier since im in love with a girl from the US), I would simply say whatever i was requiered to, but if any form of god was to be mentioned, I wouldnt feel bound by the oath since, in my opinion, god doesnt exist.

Funny thing is, if I would ever try to become a US citizen (getting likelier since im in love with a girl from the US), I would simply say whatever i was requiered to, but if any form of god was to be mentioned, I wouldnt feel bound by the oath since, in my opinion, god doesnt exist.

Since I am sick and at home I actually spent some time trying to find a case where that portion of the oath was actually inforced. I am mnot a lawyer, but, I did not find any reference.

I wish I'd have thought of "Gate"...I just finished reading it. Wonderful book...I'll have to read Singer from the Sea. Is that one of her new ones?

"Singer from the Sea" is latter Tepper, certainly - rather than 'early' Tepper.

It's not brand new... but it is recent.

I am a huge fan of Tepper - from way back in the days of the "True Game", when she (as far as I know) totally broke the mould of fantasy/sci-fi storytelling by placing a character of such ambiguous sexuality at the centre of the story... a feat she actually increased upon in "Plague of Angels".

"Gate" is certainly one of her best works.... and arguably one of THE great works by ANY author.

Funny thing is, if I would ever try to become a US citizen (getting likelier since im in love with a girl from the US), I would simply say whatever i was requiered to, but if any form of god was to be mentioned, I wouldnt feel bound by the oath since, in my opinion, god doesnt exist.

Which is the ONE respect in which it is less painful for the Atheist... but still, the 'religious' choice of the Atheist (i.e. an Atheist DOESN'T believe in god, and might wish to live a life where he/she is NOT forced to kowtow to someone ELSE's deity) is infringed, by the mere necessity to quote the Pledge.

It is arguably much harder on the Hindu, for example - who has to swear faithfulness to a god that he/she KNOWS is a blasphemy.

who is the commander in chief of one of the few modern militaries which bans homosexuals... ( I could go into the real reasons for this, aside from the convenient excuses, if I had more time).
Because of the way Clinton put this into effect isn't it horribly a pain in the ass to get rid of?

Which is the ONE respect in which it is less painful for the Atheist... but still, the 'religious' choice of the Atheist (i.e. an Atheist DOESN'T believe in god, and might wish to live a life where he/she is NOT forced to kowtow to someone ELSE's deity) is infringed, by the mere necessity to quote the Pledge.

It is arguably much harder on the Hindu, for example - who has to swear faithfulness to a god that he/she KNOWS is a blasphemy.

I can't recall any faiths who consider forced blasphemy sinful. But then again, it could be argued that this is not forced. I'm quite certain Ganesh and Vishnu would be chilled out with someone saying "Under God", if they didn't mean it. Gods are omnipresent, they will be able to distinguish between something meant and something said because it is far more beneficial than the alternatives.

Note: I am in no way condoning anything like that, all government documents should be entirely secular. But there we go.

The point I was making, about citizenship, is that you have to swear the Oath of Alliegance... in order to become a citizen... regardless of your religion, etc.

So - the Atheist, the Hindu, the Muslim... all are required to swear fealty fo the Christian 'god', just to get the right to stay.

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

§337.1 Oath of allegiance. (http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/cfr/title8/part337.html#337.1)

(a) Form of oath. Except as otherwise provided in the Act and after receiving notice from the district director that such applicant is eligible for naturalization pursuant to §335.3 of this chapter, an applicant for naturalization shall, before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony held within the United States the following oath of allegiance, to a copy of which the applicant shall affix his or her signature:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

(b) Alteration of form of oath; affirmation in lieu of oath. In those cases in which a petitioner or applicant for naturalization is exempt from taking the oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section in its entirety, the inapplicable clauses shall be deleted and the oath shall be taken in such altered form. When a petitioner or applicant for naturalization, by reason of religious training and belief (or individual interpretation thereof), or for other reasons of good conscience, cannot take the oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section with the words “on oath” and “so help me God” included, the words “and solemnly affirm” shall be substituted for the words “on oath,” the words “so help me God” shall be deleted, and the oath shall be taken in such modified form. Any reference to ‘oath of allegiance’ in this chapter is understood to mean equally ‘affirmation of allegiance’ as described in this paragraph.

(c) Obligations of oath. A petitioner or applicant for naturalization shall, before being naturalized, establish that it is his or her intention, in good faith, to assume and discharge the obligations of the oath of allegiance, and that his or her attitude toward the Constitution and laws of the United States renders him or her capable of fulfilling the obligations of such oath.

(d) Renunciation of title or order of nobility. A petitioner or applicant for naturalization who has borne any hereditary title or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any foreign state shall, in addition to taking the oath of allegiance prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, make under oath or affirmation in public an express renunciation of such title or order of nobility, in the following form:

(1) I further renounce the title of (give title or titles) which I have heretofore held; or

(2) I further renounce the order of nobility (give the order of nobility) to which I have heretofore belonged.

[22 FR 9824, Dec. 6, 1957, as amended at 24 FR 2584, Apr. 3, 1959; 32 FR 13756, Oct. 3, 1967; 56 FR 50499, Oct. 7, 1991]