Aliza Sherman: She Knows Social and Mobile

outta hiding, atta girl

It must have been my previous blog post where
I asked Condi, "hey girl, why ya hiding?"

And what do you know, a day later, she is
ready to testify publically at the 9-11 hearings.

Yeah, must have been my blog...

excuse me but please get your government out of my marriage

Just heard a great short news item on the
BBC Worldnews radio show with Professor
Hendrick Hartog, author of "Man and Wife
in America: A History" and finally, I'm getting
some of my answers to the burning question:

When did marriage become an "institution"
in the United States, particularly between a
woman and a man.

With Prez Bush saying it has been so since
the beginning of time, I've wanted to retort
"my foot" but haven't had historical data.

According to Hartog, the first historical mention
of marriage being an institution between a
woman and a man was around 1860 during
a trial of a Mormon polygamist.

Before that, as some of us know but everyone
seems to forget, marriage was nothing more
than a legal agreement so men could define
their women (aka wives) as their PROPERTY.

Marriage as an institution really hasn't been
an institution for longer than 2 centuries ie.
200 years. Hmmmm, Prez Bush, how is that
the beginning of time? I think you need more
fingers and toes to count that one.

All this to say, I think marriage should be banned
entirely and that anyone who wants to live
together, needs to get a license after
a series of psychological tests.

If they want to have kids, more tests and
another license.

And the testing is repeated annually
to renew your licenses.

This applies to any two people who are
in a loving, supportive, nurturing
relationship and want to be seen as
a pair, a couple and not solely as
an individual - with all the rights that
implies.

This applies to ANY two people.

That's my two and a half cents.

Condi, why ya hiding?

I missed "60 Minutes" so didn't get to hear what
Condaleeza Rice had to say. But I would like
to see her testify in front of the 9-11 commission.
I sort of understand the separation of powers
issue but this really does seem like she/the
Bush admin are hiding something. Politics is
too dark for me.

Book publicity for stalker

In Laramie, Wyoming, a university graduate student
was charged with felony stalking. He had terrorized
a fellow student, a young woman who had taken
out an order of protection against him.

The article about the incident in the local paper was
peculiar. Not only did it talk about the crime he had
committed, but it also devoted a great deal of space
to detail his recent book (on customer service) and
positioned him as an expert.

Partway through the article about stalking, it begins
to read like a book review. Authors have such a
hard time getting publicity for their books. I guess
we should all commit a crime for optimal coverage.

Customer service expert accused of stalking

Even more recently, the statewide newspaper gave
his book a mention. No word there about the
stalking.

jesusmania

Just saw the commercial for a made-for-tv
movie called "Jesus." Jesus is everywhere.
Books, magazines, movies, television.
Did it take Mel Gibson to get the world
talking about Jesus as if he were a current
event and new news? Who has the power,
the money, the fame to tell another side
of the story? There is no woman in Hollywood
powerful enough to tell Mary Magdalene's
story, untainted by distortion and reinvention.

passion of christ

A girlfriend of mine emailed me to say that
I should go see the "Passion of the Christ" and
that the "DaVinci Code" was bunk.

I haven't see "The Passion" yet. For a woman
who loves violent movies, I'm actually a little
squeamish about seeing it. There is a major
difference between big explosions and big
guns and the systematic torture and murder
of a good man.

I'm not religious. If asked what religion I am,
I usually say I'm spiritual but not religious.
From what I can see, religions are a major
divider of mankind. We each have our gods
and our beliefs and then we go out and kill
on behalf of those gods and those beliefs.

I loved the "DaVinci Code," not just because
it was an enjoyable read, but it introduced me
to historical context for many of my intuitive
doubts about religious scriptures that dictate
most people's beliefs.

Since reading it, I've read "The Woman with
the Alabaster Jar" by Margaret Starbird and
am reading another of her books, "The Goddess
in the Gospels."

Here is what I wrote in response to my
girlfriend who denounced the "DaVinci Code."

...

Here is my interpretation based on additional
research I've been doing. I'd be interested in
hearing your thoughts and also Mark's. This
whole thing is so fascinating to me.

What I've learned so far:

All the book is really saying (religion-wise) is that
Christ was actually married to Mary Magdalene
but that this information was distorted over
centuries by politicians and clerics to
control the masses and by doing so, the world
lost a strong and positive woman from our
religious history.

There is so much historical documentation,
much of which the Church tried to suppress
over centuries, that supports this claim.

I've been reading some wonderful books from
a female theologian who thought all of this
stuff was bunk (she read one of the earlier
books that DaVinci Code drew information from:
"Holy Blood, Holy Grail." ) Her books are "The Woman
with the Alabaster Jar" and "The Goddess in the
Gospels."

As a strong woman, wouldn't you want to know
that Christ actually revered his wife, Mary Magdalene,
and wanted her (not the Apostles) to assume his role
as teacher after he was crucified? At that time, in
Christ's teachings, women had an equal and important
part in early religion and society. But then men
decided that the power should NOT go to a woman
and proceeded to vilify her instead, proclaiming
CENTURIES later that she was a prostitute
and that Christ had been celibate?

Based on Jewish religion, specifically the
Jewish religion of Christ's time, Jewish
men must be married by a certain age.
Christ, being a practicing Jew at the
time of his teachings and travels, would
most certainly have been married. All historical
references point to Mary Magdalene being
his wife.

Also, the Bible itself makes several references
to Christ's siblings - his blood sister and brothers
who were Mary and Joseph's physical children.
The existence of these siblings was also
diminished over time but their names are
still found in several passages in the Bible.

There was no "evidence" or belief that Mary,
Christ's mother, was a virgin until centuries
after Christ's death. The Church and men in
high political positions at the time decided to create
a mythical Virgin and virgin birth as another
way to make religion somewhat mystical
and untouchable, mostly because they wanted
to be the only conduit to God.

Wouldn't it make more sense that Mary and
Joseph had children, Christ included, and
that she was a good, strong woman and a good
mother as opposed to an unattainable,
mythical figure?

And if you do even more indepth historical
research - to ancient times way before Christ
was born - you'll find myths and legends that
are almost identical to the Bible's telling
of Christ, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene.

Most prominently, is the Egyptian myth of Isis and
Osiris and their son Horus.

The Christian religion is a combination of many
ancient myths and religious rituals and rites
including Paganism - all carefully selected and
woven together by clerics and politicans.
I believe a lot of this happened in the 4th century A.D.
and there is documentation on some of the
meetings where these history-altering
decisions were made.

I truly believe our world would be a much
better place if we honored the women who
surrounded Christ in the realistic and
courageous way they lived, as equals to their
men, beloved and revered by their men
and with notable places in society.

Imagine if we grew up knowing that Christ and
Mary were equal, loving partners - this
could have a tremendous impact on how women
are treated in our society - everything from
equality of pay for equal work to lessening the
threat of violence against women, especially
domestic violence.

Ripping out the sacred feminine from our
religious history has done everyone - men and
women - an incredible disservice and created
an imbalance in our world, our hearts and
our souls.