Forsooth, the end times cometh!

I see that you have found another dogma-addled fan of religiosity who is trying to ignore the First Amendment. The United States as a government does not in any way recognize this supposed covenant that he claims exists. If there is such a thing, it is outside the purview of the government and always should have been.

Of course, for bonus stupid, Novak makes it clear that he has no idea what the word pagan means, but he clearly is under the impression that it's a bad thing.

The right wing really needs to realize that they need Dean Wormer's advice.

What does the right wing have against marriages by post-menopausal women?

I am not a Pagan, but we could (and do) do a lot worse in many of the "accepted" religions. I would take a Pagan over a fundie any day. At leaset Pagan's don't want to kill me if I don't toe their line exactly as they feel it should be toed.

Religion is one of the worst things to hit humanity; for more have been killed in its' name than that of any other excuse.

If the far right doesn't want to be equated with mental illness, they should stop talking like they suffer from mental illness.
Novak isn't mounting an argument for or against progressivism. He's ranting like a madman. For the full effect, he should consider going out onto the street in a single shoe and shaking a fist at passing motorists. A nice shopping cart wouldn't hurt either.

My rabbi, who regularly marries gay couples, will be surprised to find that she is a pagan.

Who knew?

It's true. I'm consummating my marriage to a goat at this very moment. Well, it's not a real goat. But it's real to me, and that's all that counts. And to think, the faux goat wouldn't even speak to me before Obama got into the Whitehouse.

This is real progress, people.

Turning "paganism" into an insult is not new - it's essentially an accusation of ritual satanic child abuse. The same thing happened with "atheist" and "secular humanism". And yet I have colleagues will echo that sentiment and at the same time freely admit to believing in angels and talk about praying to god for a win of their favorite team as if it weren't evidence for psychosis. How does this happen? Baal help us.

A "relapse"? That implies that the US used to be pagan in the past. (Please, tell me he's thinking of Salem 1692!)

"...the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man..."

I'm confused. Did Jews invent marriage, or did they have to wait for Christians to invent marriage for them?

Does this mean non-believers are moving up the social scale? Gotta be a silver lining here somewhere.

And a question: If this is a relapse, when was our original lapse into paganism? And if this is a recurring problem, how many lapses have we had to date? Enquiring minds want to know!

Pagans who are trying to inflict their Baalist agenda on our country are violating our traditional separation of church and state.

It's a shame Novak can't come up with a proper insult. After all, paganism is interested in fertility, so gays don't really qualify.

Christianity has paganistic rituals.

"Relapsing into paganism"is meaningless drivel.

Pagan simply means "not of our way of explaining how the Universe works."

in order to set up a household of affection and sexual favors.

Marriage for the conservative male: "Honey, I'll pretend to be affectionate if you give me a sexual favor in return."

This is a relapse into paganism.

Another step in the right direction for Obama.

I guess it must be all those Christmas trees. They were the first lapse into paganism.

Lynn Margolis is rolling over in her grave.

Perhaps the right wing's rhetorical ability exceeds their ability to understand reality, words or facts.

Only education can help them.

Hell, reading Novak's column, this one strikes me as interesting:

These decisions humiliated those who voted for President Obama because they had been assured, and assured others, that the new president would take seriously the culture of life.

Yes, I am SOOOOO humiliated by Obama's decision to do what a large majority of his supporters expected him to do. Closing Gitmo? What a disgrace! Sure, even Novak admits that this will improve our international standing, but at what cost? No, seriously. What cost? He doesn't say. But the point remains, Obama apparently assured pro-lifers that he was one of them, even if most pro-life people insisted he'd be the most pro-abortion president ever and used that as a club to beat him with. Doesn't he know he's a Democrat? How dare he act like one!

Hey, how about demanding that part of the stimulus package should go toward the building of a huge pagan monument on the National Mall? That would get the right wing bile geysering! But I'm not sure just what that monument should be - any suggestions?

I prefer Ba'al to both Moloch and Mammon, who have been our presiding deities for the last 8 years.

Who are these followers of Paganism? May Baal strike them dead!

Crankily yours,

Hey Big Jim! What do you think the Washington Monument is? Sometimes an obelisk is just obelisk, but most of the time it's an Egyptian symbol for you-know-what. After all, GW was the Father of our country.

Somebody should clue Novak too. Or was that what he meant with "relapse"?

One gets the feeling that these Republican media leaders actually get a good feeling inside from stirring up trouble in society.

All belief is paganism.

WTF is wrong with paganism? For sure, the pagans haven't killed nearly as many people as the members of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim sects have.
Come to think of it, maybe that's what Novak dislikes about it.

"From these announcements we learn that President Obama recognizes no difference between the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man (a covenant that they will have and nurture children, if they are so blessed), and a civil contract between two persons of any sex, in order to set up a household of affection and sexual favors."

So the government should only recognize marriages of Jews and Christians? If you're Hindu, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or even an atheist, the government should refuse to issue a marriage license to you because marriage in this country is reserved for Jews and Christians?

So where's Novak's call to dissolve the marriages of every couple that was not married in a Jewish or Christian ceremony?

I'm sick and tired of these right-wing jerks hiding behind Judaism and Christianity as a excuse to promote their own rotten ideas.

Talk about 'Liberal Fascism'! The truth is, one of the chief characteristics of fascism and all its watered-down imitators is the constant misuse of religious and patriotic symbols.

Look, you can't have it both ways. Paganism is everything that happened before christ, basically. But the right wing has been assuring us that prohibitions against gay unions and gay sex predate that handily and include all previous pagan communities. Even soddom and gomorrah (in their incorrect reading of that myth) were anomalous. So why is gay marriage "relapsing into paganism?" They've assured us that the institution of marriage--certainly the greco roman tradition, was resolutely anti gay.

I think I've seen this language before, however, in the recently published letter from the newly recognized anti-vatican II, pro nazi, Bishop Williamson. There he accuses *Julie Andrews* and The sound of Music of fomenting a pagan/feminist inherently anti catholic view of marriage simply because she and the captain look like they are enjoying themselves rather than submitting themselves to a dutifully loveless and hierarchical union.

aimai

If these scum weren't as dangerous as they are, they'd be funny as hell. I suppose for Novak the last 8 years were the height of "Christian civilization"?

Funny thing: if my significant other and I decided to get married so we could share the health benefits of one of us, or something equally mundane and non-holy, we'd have no trouble getting married in any church, despite our lack of ability (by age) to procreate - and in my other marriages, where I had no intention of ever procreating, I'd still have had no trouble getting a church wedding. Why? Because I'm heterosexual.

In the meantime, my oldest friend since Kindergarten, who has been with his partner for longer than all three of my marriages and is truly committed to "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, til death us do part," can't get married. Why? Because they aren't heterosexual.

Everytime I hear stuff like this from guys like Novak, I wish I was in a position to punch them in the mouth, then kick them when they go down. Repeatedly.

Darn! I was hoping for a relapse into satanism!

So the government should only recognize marriages of Jews and Christians?

Mnemosyne - You misunderstand. Because Jews and Christians invented marriage, it's their covenant. They own it, and any non-Jew or Christian who gets married pays a sort of soul tax to Yahweh in exchange for him granting them a marriage covenant. I believe he gets the part of your soul that resides in your foot.

God is sort of like the County Clerk, except the lines aren't so long and he's got better coffee.

A little more "paganism" would do this country a great deal of good.

If, as Mr. Novak would have us believe, we have relapsed into a pagan philosophy, then it should be noted that today's "pagans" are more in line with the teachings of a certain carpenter from Nazareth than are today's "christians." Given that, one might be led to find that the United states of America is, by far, a good deal better off being a "pagan" nation than a "christian theocracy"....

"Pagan" comes from the Latin pagani, which means "peasants." It's use by the Xtians as a derogatory term goes back to the pagani in the Roman Empire looking askance at the loonies like Paul and telling him "no, thank you." And then, once the Xtians had the backing of Roman military power when Constantine made them the state religion, they would go "convert" the local warlord and then let him "convert" the pagani. That's basically how they maintained their power through the 18th Century: kill the peasants whenever they got out of line.

This doofus is just trying to conflate secularism (which is what Obama is talking about) with paganism (which he clearly isn't talking about).

Frankly, the mindless materialism and idiotic exceptionalism preached by today's conservatism, combined with the deification of leaders like Bush and Palin, is more reminiscent of paganism than anything in Obama's portfolio.

Mike

"a household of affection and sexual favors"?!? Where was this guy when I was writing my marriage vows?

Mental illness would be the woman who had 8 preemies.

Such selfishness should not be tolerated, period.

The whole family should drop dead, as far as I'm concerned.

This ticks me off... people are trying to scrape by and they will use the resources of 3 families, will get all kinds of free medical care, be darlings of hte religious right, and what kids survive will never be normal.

There is just nothing right when people breed, artifically no less, like rabbits (no offense to rabbits).

Novak should be careful, monotheism is only one god from athesim.

Hey, how about demanding that part of the stimulus package should go toward the building of a huge pagan monument on the National Mall? That would get the right wing bile geysering! But I'm not sure just what that monument should be - any suggestions?

A gigantic white Egyptian obelisk would be nice....

http://www.nps.gov/wamo/

Novak wrote: "... Obama recognizes no difference between the Jewish-Christian covenant between a woman and a man (a covenant that they will have and nurture children, if they are so blessed), and a civil contract between two persons of any sex ..."

Actually, I believe that Obama very much recognizes the difference.

A "Jewish-Christian covenant" is an establishment of religion, and under the US Constitution, the government may not make any law regarding it. Strictly speaking, it is un-Constitutional for the government to grant any recognition whatsoever to any religious "covenant", including marriages performed by clergy, churches, etc. And the government absolutely has no role or power to legislate who may or may not avail themselves of any religious covenant, including marriage. That's entirely up to churches and the government does not and cannot have any say about it.

As far as the government is concerned, a marriage performed by a Wiccan priestess has exactly the same Constitutional legal standing as one performed by a Christian minister or priest or a Jewish rabbi: namely, none at all.

On the other hand, "a civil contract between two persons" is by definition a matter of law, and thus an "establishment of government". And in this case it is un-Constitutional for the government to deny equal protection under the law, and equal opportunity for all individuals, to enter into such contracts without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other irrelevant conditions.

But I'm not sure just what that monument should be - any suggestions?

A totem pole?

So many times I wished that NRO allowed comments so that I could tell them what I thought even though it would mean I would get booted from the comment section.

Delusional doesn't even begin to describe that cult over there.

It sounds like Michael Novak and The National Review really hate America. I wonder why. National Review, why do you hate America?

DrBB, you are completely cracking me up!

That said, I doubt the Mrs. would appreciate being labeled a goat. (snicker...sorry, couldn't resist.)

I sense a reality show here... The Perks of Pagandom! Yeeha!

My rabbi, who regularly marries gay couples, will be surprised to find that she is a pagan.

Not nearly as surprised as my rabbi and her wife.

I always find comments like this hilarious. If Michael Novak would actually read the Bible -- something athiests do a lot more than Christians -- he'd realize that Biblical Judaism was polygynist, that the customary arrangement was one man with several wives.

There is a myth that this was a 'special privilege fir the Patriarchs' (a way of getting around the stories of thre many wives of certain Biblical figures) but it is a myth. The section about forbidden sexual behaviour in Deuteronomy includes several places where a disatinction is made between 'your mother' and 'your father's wive' and between 'your sister' and 'the daughter of your father.'

These distinctions don't make sense unless you assume a polygamist -- specifically polygynist -- social structure. And it was written for the whole 'tribe of Israel.' (This seems to have been different from accepting concubines, which is also permitted, even allowing 'slave/concubines.')

Josephus's autobiographical fragment, in which he refers to his brother as being his 'true brother, the child of my father and my mother,' implies that at least upper class Judaism -- as he proudly declares himself a member of the highest priestly family -- continued this past the time of Jesus and until the exile.

As for early Christianity, I have yet to find a Christian who could refute my argument that the opening of both I Timothy and Titus (both late and obviously non-Paulianian) which lists 'being the husband of one wife' as one of the requirements for a Bishop (or 'elder' or 'overseer', depending on the translation) demonstrates that this was not a requirement for the Church as a whole.

Of course, if you look at history, you'll find that the practice of at least 'concubinage' has been consistent throughout, as well as non-marital relationships. (As late as the late 30s, Bolivia -- nominally Christian -- had better than half of its population born 'out of wedlock.')

Does anyone want to talk about the pre-WWI English 'weekend houseparties' that usually included an *ahem* somewhat casual memory of which room contained one's wife.

A black friend of mine, raised Baptist, told me repeatedly that it was almost expected that the minister would be sleepings with some of the women in the congregation -- and historically 'revival meetings' usually resulted in a spike in the birth rate nine months later. (The emotionalism in the meetings frequently came out in sexual terms, as much as this might have been decried in the meeting.)

If Novak wants to return to 'traditional Judaeo-Christian morality' have him speak out for the (Biblical) idea that if you rape an unmarried woman, you owed compensation to her father and you were required to marry the woman with no divorce permitted. (Take a second to think of that through the eyes of the raped girl.)

That would get him a lot of support!

What does Novak mean by "were sliding into paganism. If Novak is the Christian he asserts he is , he has been into 'Paganism" his whole life. What the hell does he think JESUS is, a real true person? JESUS is a PAGAN symbol; something to believe in and pray to that has no actual basis. Jesus was made up in the first century ad by a church looking for something bigger than themselves, so they MADE UP the legend of Jesus.
Jesus is an amalgimation of people around during the time of his supposed life. Most historians will tell you this. So, technically, Jesus is the pagan symbol that Chrisitans pray to.
Just another reason why religion is full of ..it!

A gigantic white Egyptian obelisk would be nice....

White, huh? Has the time not come for us as a nation to embrace brown, yellow and red phallic symbols with as much enthusiasm as we give white ones? I'm just sayin'.

Paganism?? It's amazing that these adults think the way I did when I was a 10 year old being force fed the Baltimore Catechism five days a week and twice on Sunday.

Mr. Novak had best watch his language. My goddess is quick to anger and slow to forgive.

Remember, liberals want to promote Baal worship!

Exactly when did the Jews & the Christians make this covenant?

Hail, Baal!

Hmm. Kind of catchy.

I was thinking, "Play Baal!" myself.

"a covenant that they will have ... children, if they are so blessed"

To the best of my knowledge, no such covenant exists. Certainly, none of the traditional wedding vows include any mention of children and no major religion that I'm aware of requires that the prospective spouses intend to, or indeed be able to, have children. Novak is basically making shit up.