Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    	What are the best resources for study on the Goddess?
    
    

    Suzanne,
    
    I am not a Goddess worshipper, since I follow the faith of my
    fathers (atheism), but I include it as part of my philosophy.
    
    First of all, I wrote on this subject in version one of this
    conference (press KP7 or Select), in Note 518, and people are
    more than welcome to read it all over.  I also wrote some in
    version two (Note 84) but that note is much less satisfactory
    to me (except for the dedication).
    
    Second, be warned that in this and my next expected reply, I will be
    very superficial; I can elaborate later.
    
    Fortunately, I have before me an excellent example of typical
    misrepresentations about this religion, full of inexcusably ignorant
    claims and false extrapolations.  (I had been meaning to write a
    letter about this anyhow.)  I am quoting from `Spiritual Values
    and "the Goddess"' by Victoria Branden in the Fall, 1990 issue of
    "Free Inquiry" magazine.
    
    "Matriarchal societies have existed" - They haven't.  There
    has *N*E*V*E*R* been a matriarchal society on this planet.  Early
    anthropologists sometimes made this mistake.  They found a society
    (current, historical, or pre-historical) which was not patriarchal,
    and therefore analyzed it on the assumption that the *only* alternative
    was that it was matriarchal!  This error is slowly being corrected.
    
    Lecture:  Prehistorical societies are best described as egalitarian
    (or equalitarian, as Eisler uses).  These societies are NOT
    hierarchical; that is the same sort of thinking that gets us the
    "ladder of evolution" with humans on top.  Evolution is a shrub;
    humans are a nice big leaf on the outside; so there.  These societies
    were more of a network of interactions and interdependancies.
    
    Metaphor:  Each early society is a net.  Each person is a knot holding
    the strands together.  There is no Top Knot in a net.  The knots
    on the edge are perhaps more important, for the shape, and are more
    at risk, but they are generally double corded for strenghth.  The
    knots in the middle are important, but only because in their
    *absence*, more fish would be lost through that hole than through
    an off-center hole.
    
    "Druid societies [are] cited as one such saintly and enlightened
    community" - I can't think why; we know essentially nothing about
    them.  Most of what we "know" was invented by nineteenth century
    romantics.
    
    "Druidism was a horribly cruel religion" - This is from the Romans
    description of their enemies.  Anthropologists put little to no
    faith in this description -- but it made a good movie.  Even the
    Roman description said nothing about Goddess worship.
    
    "The corn gods of the Americas demanded [human] sacrifice" - These
    religions are blatantly patriarchal; I can't think why they are
    mentioned.  Yes, I can.  The author thinks that any religion that
    isn't one of the top three (five, seven?) is therefore a Goddess
    religion, or is therefore a primative religion and is therefore
    a Goddess religion.
    
    Then, after only this *one* paragraph on her ostensible subject,
    she interweaves her interpretation of a local meeting of the Green
    Party, Seventh-Day Adventism, Shirley MacLaine, and "Religiosity
    as a Mental Disorder" -- her real topic IMHO.  (Let's blame the
    editors for their use of a Procrustean bed, to force this article
    into their theme for this issue: "Fulfilling Feminist Ideals: A
    New Agenda", shall we?)
    
    I'll have to snag some of the erroneous comments from this conference
    and reply to them later.
    
    						Ann B.

	A lot of people seem to be using the term - GODDESS WORSHIP.
	That is not (IMO) what the goddess is all about, it is not
	worship, it is respect, understanding, and caring about what
	the goddess represents (as in the Whole Earth and all parts
	therein).

	There is no doctrine, there is no "bible", there is no
	right way of worship, there is no right place to worship,
	there is really no worship, except in the larger sense of
	love for all that the goddess represents and the everyday
	expression of that love.

	As for where to learn more, there are a large number of books
	out about the topic - look in Book in Print in your local
	library under the word (title or topic) goddess.  You will be
	looking for non-fiction books of course.  Check out seminar
	and discussion groups are various places (Interface in Watertown
	MA,).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The goddess is in all things and
			all things are part of the goddess

    Peggy,
    
    No disrespect meant, but I am curious that so much literature
    would exist on something with no guidelines, doctorine, bible,
    etc.  Could you share with us some of what the literature does
    cover, or would that be redundant?  Is any of this related to
    Wicca or are they two separate entities/beliefs?
    
    Christine

    
>    From Webster's Ninth:
>    
>    pantheism, n.  1: a doctrine that equates God with all forces and laws
>    of the universe  2: the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults,
>    or peoples indifferently; also: toleration of worship of all gods (as
>    at certain periods of the Roman empire)
    
	Is this related to Beethoven's Ninth - da da da daaaaa

	Pantheism, n. 1: a doctrine (sorry no docrine) that equates (not
	equates but is) God(dess) with(in) all (stop).  2: the worship
	of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently
	(huh!!!! and I really do mean HUH!!!); also: toleration of 
	worship of all gods 

	There is no doctrine, the goddess is within all, the goddess is
	personal, for each individual she may be different since each of
	us experience life differently and since there is no "right way
	of expressing the goddess" any name that expresses what the
	individual experience is right for them at that time.

	One of the major problema with discussion about the goddess is
	that most of us have been brought up not to identify our life
	experiences as sacred and so we are not able to name our experience
	of the goddess with out conjuring up extra baggage.  The goddess
	is real simple

		everything is part of the goddess
		and the goddess is part of everything
		the interconnected web of exisitence

	The trouble is dealing with non-complex images when we have been
	trained to only value complex images.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			There are many stories to tell
			by many people in many ways

    
    that's the fifth, i think ;^)
    
    i would say, sure, think of goddess reverence as 'pantheism' if
    you wish. it's certainly in the right direction. 
    

    Peggy,
    
    You're right about it being difficult for some of us to imagine
    something so unstructured.  I'm still curious, if the Goddess is
    within us all, how does this religion deal with elements of evil
    or good vs bad?  Is there any particular path to follow or heavenly
    rewards system?  If not, how does one know whether or not they've
    offended the Goddess?  Is it possible to offend the Goddess?  Please
    excuse my ignorance, but I really don't know anything about this at
    present and always find different methods of worship fascinating.
    
    Christine

    
    i don't really know what 'goddess morality' is. however, it is
    my impression that it rejects what we normally use, which is
    'rational ethics'. we have moral rules which we try to apply
    logically. reverence for the goddess suggests to me that 'good'
    is something that we sense and strive for. the 'rules' are
    the lazy man's way. see 'good and evil' by taylor and 'women's
    morality' by, uh, by....oops... noddings? will check...
    

	Okay Joe - I always get them confused (anyway the ninth is 
		much more difficult to da de da)

	Christine,

	Since the relationship to the goddess is personal, each 
	individual is responsible for their own actions.  There
	is no reward system other than living in harmony with the
	universe.  Some believe there are multiple lives that one
	lives, some don't.  The concept of evil is man-made, there
	is no evil in nature.  This is probably the most difficult
	concept to acknowledge - that evil is man-made.

	The goddess is not personalfied so you can not offend "her"
	but you can live in dis-harmony and know it (such as air
	pollution or acid rain).
    
	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			Through the goddess one accepts
			responsiblity for ones own actions
			not the in-actions of others
    

    Peggy
    
    Thank you.  It helps a lot.  I wholeheartedly agree with
    you that the concept of evil being man-made can be a
    difficult one to shake off.
    
    Christine

re.9

not a 'worship' so much as a celebration and experience of the deity within me
and around me.  I can choose to live in harmony with it, or I can choose to
reject it.

no codified rewards or punishments.  reward and punishment are from within. if
this is the 'right' path I will prosper and grow; if it the 'wrong' path I will 
not.

evil _is_, just as good _is_.  look within and know it.  do you shy away or do
you rush to embrace what you find? 

This from <complex labelling exercise follows> a charismatic Anglican who finds
quibbles over the gender of the life-force that creates and sustains us as
useful as debates of the 'nature and number of the Sacraments' -- they hone the
intellect, but do little to foster spiritual growth.

  Annie

    (This reply isn't directed at/caused by any particular previous
    reply.)
    
    Yes, one variety of worship of the Goddess is Wicca.  "Wicca"
    means "life", as in the Broad Yorkshire phrase, "'Tis wick." that
    we all picked up from _The_Secret_Garden_.  No?  Not everyone?
    Okay, sorry.  Anyhow, "witch" and related terms have the root of
    their FORM in the word "wicca", and of their SUBSTANCE in the
    western Christian claims about non-Christian religions.  (Cf.
    Judaism and Islam.)
    
    Yes, Satanism is very different from worship of the Goddess.  Odd
    as it may seem, Satanism is an offshoot of Christianity, depending
    on Christian doctrine and imagery as the basis -- in reverse -- for
    *its* doctrine and imagery.
    
    The Goddess is the Triple Goddess, having (like other deities we've
    read about) more than one nature/aspect/attribute/je ne sais quoi.
    These aspects are the Maiden, the Matron, and the Crone.  These can
    map to Spring, Summer-through-harvest, and Winter, or to Youth,
    Maturity, and Death.
    
    It is this attribute of Death that I find the most difficult to
    deal with.  Now, modern religions [seem to] hold as one of their
    docrines that death is a punishment, that it is not truly part of
    the Natural Order of Things, and that it can be overcome (in a
    metaphysical sense, or for real, depending) by appropriate
    application of the One True Religion.  By making death a natural
    part of the cycle, so it goes Birth, Life, Reproduction, Death,
    Return to the God, Re-Birth�, et cetera, everything changes.  The
    change seems to me so fundamental and overarching that it cannot
    even be communicated to someone who believes Death = Wrong/Bad/Sin
    -- and everyone in this society `believes' that to some extent.
    
    One of the attributes of any, um, non-monotheism that monotheists
    have trouble adjusting to is the tolerance.  There is this live-and-
    let-live, our-maps-are-different-but-the-territory-seems-the-same
    attitude which is not deeply comprehensible to people who belong
    to the class of One True Religion religions.  I guess it's hard for
    either side to accept that the other side *really* believes That
    (for any value of That).
    
    Now, in addition to the Goddess of Death idea, there is a belief
    that can bring terror into your heart.  This is, "What goes around,
    comes around."  If you have a bad conscience, this can sound pretty
    awful (but it shouldn't unless you've really earned your bad
    conscience :-).  If, however, you are nice to people as a general
    rule, it probably strikes you as a comforting idea.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � Now, this can mean reincarnation, but it does not *necessarily*
    mean that.  It can mean that you are just reassured that your
    rotting body provides the fertilizer that grows the grain that
    feeds the people who produce the next generation of people, and
    that you are *thus* still included, as you were even before you
    were born.

    Ann, not all monotheists have trouble with tolerance.  The theologian
    John Hick, for example, has devoted considerable energies to a theology
    of religious pluralism.
    
    -- Mike

    Thank you Peggy and Ann. These 2 NOTES are the clearest explanations on
    Goddess reverance that I have ever read. They also are leading me to
    ask more questions as soon as I formulate them properly. And that is
    the true point to teaching and gaining knowledge. To understand
    something well enough to know what you want to ask next.
    
    Phil

    
    re:.16- humour
    
    read in the vein it was written; good show!
    

At the risk of creating a rathole, I'm curious as to the relationship between
the Goddess and the Horned God in modern Goddess based religions. A number of
my friends are pagans, and have a deep reverence for the Horned God. I
understand a lot of what the Horned God *isn't* (like he *isn't* Satan, I can
elaborate if needed...) but I don't have a good idea what his relationship is
to the Goddess in "modern" Goddess religions. (I have some idea what his
relationship is in "classical" Goddess religions.)

	-- Charles

Hhhmmmm...in many ways, this is stikingly similar to the Religious Society of
Friends.  

E Grace

	Charles,

	I can't answer as I don't know very much about the Horned-God.

	Most of what I have read that refers to a Horned-God refer to
	the son-consort of the Great Goddess.  Beyond that I am not
	sure.

	I do not refer to myself as a pagan, this is one of the subtle
	differences why I don't.

	_peggy

			(-)
			 |
				The Great Mother Goddess is the one
				from which all existance came

    re: .5
    
    How can so much religion surround something with few guidelines, no
    solid doctrine, etc....?  Well look at Unitarian Universalism - 
    here's our "charter"
    
    p.s.  there's Unitarian Universalist Pagans, Unitarian Universalist
    Buddhists, Unitarian Universalist Wiccans...etc...etc.... - the
    plurality does not weaken the religion - it enables it to be made more
    personal, and closer to each believer's heart.....
    
    -Jody
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The purposes of the Unitarian Universalist Association:
    
    The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
    
    Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations;
    
    Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our
    congregation;
    
    A free and repsonsible search for truth and meaning;
    
    The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within
    our congregations and in society at large;
    
    The goal of a world community with peace and liberty and justice for
    all;
    
    Respect for the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part;
    
    The living tradition we share draws from many sources:
    
    Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in
    all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit of openness to
    the forces that create and uphold life;
    
    Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to
    confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and
    the transforming power of love;
    
    Wisdom from the world's religions which inspire us in our ethical and
    spiritual life;
    
    Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love
    by loving our neighbors as ourselves;
    
    Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and
    the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and
    spirit;
    
    Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches our faith, we are
    inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our vision.  As a free
    congregation we covenant with one another in mutual trust and support.
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is part of something I wrote long ago in trying to explain some of
    my beliefs.
    

  The Old Religion, The Craft, Witchcraft: all names for Goddess
  worship. 

  Basicly Goddess worship is a celebration of the mysteries of the
  Triple Goddess of birth, love, and death (Maiden, Mother, Crone) and 
  her Consort, the Horned God, Lord of the Dance.

  Some claim this religion has existed for 35,000 years, starting 
  in Europe around the time of the Great Ice Age. It is very 
  closely related to shamanism. It has no dogmas, nor scriptures, nor 
  fixed set of beliefs.

  Witchcraft takes its teachings from nature; the movements of the sun 
  and moon, the growth of trees, the cycles of the seasons. 
  Witchcraft is a religion of poetry, metaphor and mystery rather than
  theology and dogma. 

  The mysteries of the the absolute cannot be explained or 
  told, they can only be felt or known intuitively. Inner knowledge 
  literally cannot be expressed in words, each experience gives
  different insight to each person who has that experience. 

  The Goddess _is_ everything. She is not separate from this world, 
  but part of each thing: sun, moon, rivers, trees, birds, animals and
  people. Flesh and spirit are one.

  One thing which is very important is that the Goddess _does not_ 
  RULE the world, She is the world. Finding the harmony between 
  yourself and every other living and non-living thing is what the
  Craft IS. 

  Celebrating creation and creativity, fertility, feminity, sexuality, 
  life and one's self is worshipping the Goddess.

  All things are interrelated and and interdependent and mutually
  responsible for one another. Justice is not something which can be
  administered by an outside force. Each person must be resposible for
  her own actions. "What you send, returns three times over" is the 
  same way, only stronger, of saying "Do unto others, as you would 
  have them do unto you".

  The Goddess loves diversity, not conformity. Oneness is found thru 
  realizing the self fully, not denying it or trying to lose it in 
  something else. 

  The Craft has many, many traditions, some new, some very old. Some 
  follow traditions handed down since the middle ages, some traditions
  are from modern revivals, some create their own traditions. Each is 
  as valid as any other.

  "Honor the Goddess in yourself, celebrate your self, and you will see 
  that Self is everywhere."
    
***************************************************************************

  Most of the above I paraphrased from _The_Spiral_Dance_ by Starhawk. 
  A lot of it is also expressed in _The_White_Goddess_ by Robert 
  Graves. Another excellant version is found in Marion Zimmer 
  Bradley's _Mists_of_Avalon_.

In some ways the Goddess seems like the Tao as Lao Tzu describes it. Or rather,
as he describes something which isn't the Tao as it can't be described.

"The Tao that can be explained is not the Tao". It seems the Goddess is the same
sort of idea. liesl


	Existence is beyond the power of words
	To define:
	Terms may be used
	But none of them are absolute.
	In the beginning of heaven and earth there were no
			words,
	Words came out of the womb of matter;
	And whether one dispassionately
	Sees to the core of life
	Or passionately
	Sees the surface,
	The core and the surface
	Are essentially the same,
	Words make them seem different
	Only to express appearance.
	If name be needed, wonder names them both:
	From wonder into wonder
	Existence opens.

    Ann,
    
    Thank you for your response.  I thought you made an interesting
    point about death in some (I think you said monotheistic) religions.
    I never really though about Death as bad/punishment/sin, then again,
    I tend to think of death from natural causes.  Now that I think of
    it, there are those undertones when a young person has died. 
    Fascinating!
    
    Where/how does one learn more about this religion other than using
    reference books?  Are there ever any meetings/gatherings in which
    the philosophy is again discussed and embraced?
    
    christine

    Christine,
    
    I've never been to one, but some of our =wn= community puts
    on "cakes for the queen of heaven" at local UU churches which
    I believe is goddess oreinted. 
    
    Peggy Leedberg could tell you more.
    
    Bonnie

    Thanks Bonnie!  

I think it's important to remember, when we talk about the Goddess 
religion, that we're not talking about a new (or "new age") religion, but 
about the oldest religion on earth -- one that existed in ancient times in 
many different cultures, and that was, for the most part, suppressed. As
Barbara Walker writes in her introduction to *The Woman's Encyclopedia of
Myths and Secrets*, "Through making God in his own image, man has almost
forgotten that woman once made the Goddess in hers. This is the deep secret
of all mythologies, and the fundamental secret of this book." 

I've found Walker's book really helpful, especially as a starting point for 
learning about the Goddess religion in ancient times; the suppression of
the Goddess religion -- how it was not tolerated by newer, male-oriented
religions, which gradually eliminated woman from the divine; how all this
contributed directly to the devaluation of women in their actual lives,
their inferior status coming eventually to be perceived as "natural"; and
how some aspects of the ancient Goddess religion did manage to survive
through the centuries, despite all efforts to suppress them. 

Of course, this same story is told in many other books (e.g., Merlin Stone's 
*When God Was a Woman*). Walker's book is appealing if you like reading 
encyclopedias. Her book (which is 1124 pages long) has tons of references 
and an extensive bibliography.

Merlin Stone also wrote another book, *Ancient Mirrors of Womanhood*, a
study of the ancient Goddess religion, and heroine lore, in specific
cultures (Celtic, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Native American, African,
Semitic, Anatolian, Polynesian, Indian, Scandinavian, Egyptian, Sumerian).
A number of Semitic, Anatolian, and Sumerian prayers to the Goddess, based
on translations of original tablets, are included. As the title of her book
suggests, Stone is concerned about "the general lack of strong and positive
images of women, in the literature and traditions, both sacred and secular,
of our own society." She writes about what a positive effect it would have
on women's status and self-esteem if their "mirroring" in the divine still
existed, and what a loss it was for women when that mirroring was "degraded
or erased": "For those who question just what effects those images might
have had upon the status and perceptions of womanhood in the societies that
have revered these images, we might in turn ask why the male-oriented
religions were so anxious to hide or deny them..." Her hope is to help
restore such positive images to women, through the reclaiming of the lost
Goddess religion. 

Another aspect of the Goddess religion that is very important to Stone, and 
that has been cited in this string, is its view of nature and the earth as
sacred rather than as something to be subdued. She finds this reverence for
nature in, among other places, "the surviving Native American, African, and
Polynesian accounts of the Goddess." 

D.

    What strikes me as interesting in this string is that so many people
    notice similarities between the Goddess religion(s) and mainstream
    religions.  I myself notice some similarities to Buddhism.  It's as
    though there is a spiritual truth that many have examined and seen
    different aspects of it in different ways.  It could be that people
    are all looking at the same spiritual truth (God,Goddess,Tao,...)
    from different perspectives, seeing the same thing but through their
    own window, as St. Paul said "through a glass darkly".  If that is
    so then religious differences could be viewed as different views or
    even distortions of a single spritual truth.  But, no one can claim
    to see the truth perfectly, without distortion.
    
    Mary

    
    i am more inclined to think that these glimpses of the goddess in
    other religions are there *in spite* of attempts by these religions
    to eradicate her. 
    
     

    
    RE .29
    
    I agree with you, by and large.
    
    I believe in one Truth, and that people should be allowed to approach
    that in whatever way, or through whichever "window", or through
    whatever symbolism is most natural to them. It's hard enough to 
    prioritise your spiritual growth in this busy world without having
    to work with an alien-feeling creed/symbol set as well.
     
    Some windows seem to me to be to be partly shuttered, but maybe that's
    because they're not my window, and others doubtless think the same
    about mine. So be it.
    I hope (maybe even pray) that it is possible for the whole Truth to be 
    seen, eventually, through any one window. I believe that the Goddess
    facet is a part of that Truth, and will therefore turn up sooner or
    later *whichever* window you look through, as long as you look with an
    open heart.
    
    For me, She is the starting point.
    'gail                              
    

re.29

Certainly.  Which is why I am proud to call myself a charismatic Anglican, a
cursillista, and a child of god.  Codified dogma and doctrine are immaterial
to me, as I look inward to the light of the spirit.  I am Anglican as I was 
born to it and I find it a comfortable way of focusing the inward gaze, although
others do work.

re.30

While I believe I understand your sentiment, you opinion is somewhat at variance
with history.  As most new religions arose, they gained converts, acolytes, and
acceptance by the expedient of incorporating important/significant elements
of earlier goddess-based religions and claiming them as their own Special
Revelation.

Certainly a lot revisionism ensued.

For myself, I find the idea of god having _any_ gender silly; so the idea of
eradicating "her" suits me just fine ... just don't come back with a "him" ...
as long as god remains.

  Annie

    .32
    
    Why is .30 at variance with history? They may have appropriated earlier
    elements, as you say, but they sure did a good job of suppressing the
    fact that a goddess had anything to do with those elements.
    
    Or am I misreading you,
    
    D.

    I have a copy of Anne E. Carr's book, "Transforming Grace", which was
    published in 1988.  Carr's book of feminist theology has apparently
    been well received in certain quarters, based on the quotations on the
    back cover.  "A long-awaited work.  A major contribution to the
    literature of feminist systematic theology," says Rosemary Radford
    Ruether, author of Women-Church.  Marie-Anne Mayeski, of _America_,
    said, "A fine example of a new stage of feminist theology:  a sustained
    and coherent systematic reflection on feminist criticism taken as a
    whole and sympathetic from the inside."  And Susan A. Ross, of _New
    Theology Review", writes "A landmark work for feminist theology."

    Well, with credentials like that, I was interesting in reading what she
    had to say.  It is a very interesting book, and she has some comments
    to make about Goddess religion:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some continue the debate over the question of a lost or hidden
    matriarchy, characterized by the worship of the Great Mother.  While
    Bachofen's thesis of an original matriarchy would seem to be laid to
    rest, Goddess worship has reemerged in a new context today--feminist
    Wicca--a witchcraft spirituality that claims connection with ancient
    and medieval traditions.  Rosemary Ruether, however, has criticized
    this historical claim, insisting that worship of the Great Mother
    emerged in a patriarchal context concerned with kings, not with the
    liberation of slaves and women.  Another thesis has been put forward by
    Judith Ochshorn, who studies the relationships among gender, power, and
    religious participation in the religions of the ancient Near East.  She
    holds that gender is relatively unimportant in polytheistic cultures,
    while it becomes determinative in the monotheistic religions of the
    Bible.  However, her approach to Mesopotamian and Greek texts has also
    been questioned and her treatment of the New Testament is literalistic
    and unsophisticated.  But despite "her failure to perceive the
    pervasive effects of patriarchy, whether in a polytheistic or
    monotheistic setting," her work is important "because she ties the
    larger theoretical question to a detailed, painstaking study of many
    ancient documents, thus enabling us to see more clearly the patriarchal
    web that obfuscates theological language and disadvantages women."...
    
    As is well known, some feminists criticize the biblical and theological
    tradition in a way that finds Judaism with its male God and
    Christianity with its male savior, irredeemably biased against women. 
    Mary Daly has argued powerfully for a women's religion, beyond the
    death of God the father, that builds on the framework of Christian
    symbols--radically reversing them in favor of women.  Carol Christ
    seeks a distinctively female spirituality by analyzing literary texts
    of women.  In their stories of spiritual quest, women "have preserved
    certain values that have been devalued by the dominant male culture,"
    values that may be critically reclaimed by women today.  She advocates
    Goddess worship for women, using Clifford Geertz's definition of
    religion--"a system of symbols which act to produce powerful,
    pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations"--to assert the
    psychological and political necessity of female religious symbols to
    affirm women and female sexual identity today.

	Religions centered on the worship of a male God create "moods" and
	"motivations" that keep women in a state of psychological dependence
	on men and male authority, while at the same time legitimating the
	*political* and *social* authority of fathers and sons in
	institutions of society.

    Christ traces aspects of Goddess symbolism important for the religious
    experience of contemporary women:  affirmation of female power, the
    female body, the female will, and women's bonds and heritage.  She
    suggests that the reemergence of the Goddess is natural in the new
    culture that women are struggling to create from their own experience.
    Naomi Goldenberg has also written in favor of Goddess worship and
    witchcraft as a new religion for women.  Using a feminist version of
    Jungian themes, she suggests dream analysis as a source of spiritual
    revelation.

    This kind of feminist spirituality, as a religion based solely on the
    experience of women, is a significant movement, especially in its
    courageous affirmations of female value and dignity.  Yet it has been
    criticized for its supposed dependence on Jung and Geertz, neither of
    whom would agree that religious symbols can be generated at will; they
    are, rather, granted, *received*.  Caroline Walker Bynum questions the
    assumption that women need female religious images in view of her
    research on medieval mysticism:  "If women are more particularly
    attracted by images of women, why is it that monks refer more
    frequently to the virgin Mary, while women concentrate especially on
    the infant or adolescent Christ?"  Paula Fredrikson Landes observes
    that "what these women actually offer, in Geertz's terms, is not
    religion but ideology." Both Landes and Ruether note that this
    spirituality, which characterizes male religion as hierarchical and
    female religion as egalitarian, reverses domination in religious
    symbols, is separatist in orientation, assigns goodness to females and
    evil to males, and perpetuates the nature/culture dichotomy in
    female/male symbolism.  Landes notes that while these perspectives
    "emphasize the nurturant maternal nature of women as a central aspect
    of the female experience," the heroines of the novels that serve as
    their "canon" of religious texts "all in some way turn their backs to
    their own children."  She judges a "recycled earth goddess," a
    "post-humous deity" too empty and too late for the spiritual search of
    contemporary feminists.

    Schussler Fiorenza's point is important, that those who simply abandon
    the Jewish and Christian traditions fail to perceive the powerful hold
    of biblical religion on Western culture and on many women, all of whom
    need to be included in the feminist vision of liberation.  Ruether adds
    that these are the religious traditions that have formed Western
    language and culture; they provide modes of critical judgment and moral
    guidelines that contemporary women cannot ignore.  Ruether uses the
    prophetic and messianic traditions of the Bible as the source for an
    inclusive theology that takes account of the interstructuring of
    racism, classism, and sexism in the development of traditional
    Christian theology and practice.  She also relates feminist theology to
    ecological issues in arguing for mutually supportive rather than
    hierarchical or dominating models of relationship.  Biblical scholar
    Phyllis Trible uses literary criticism to show the "coutervoices" in
    the Bible that dispute and judge its central patriarchal themes, to
    show that "de-patriarchalizing" is required by the Bible itself as it
    offers the basis for new theological construction.  Margaret Farley
    rethinks the meaning of Christian love as equal regard and equal
    opportunity, Christian justice in relation to the individual and the
    common good, and notions of self-sacrifice and servanthood as "active
    receptivity" in calling for new patterns of relationship within the
    Christian community.

    Such efforts at theological revision take seriously both the radical
    feminist critique of Judaism and Christianity and the experience of many
    thoughtful women who remain within the synagogues and churches.  Both
    historically and in the present, the Jewish and Christian symbols have
    been oppressive *and* liberating for women.  Recognizing the religious,
    cultural, and linguistic contexts of Judaism and Christianity as
    formative both of the androcentric tradition *and* as the source of
    criticism by women, some feminist theologians argue for the critical
    transformation of received religious symbols rather than their
    abandonment.  (pages 89-92)

    Here are some more comments from Anne E. Carr's book:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The differences within feminist religious scholarship as it relates to
    Christian theology are accounted for by different perceptions of the
    depth and pervasiveness of sexism within Christianity.  As we noted...,
    Carol Christ argues that the essential challenge is posed by Mary Daly's
    claim that the gender and the intrinsic character and attributes of the
    Christian God are patriarchal.  Christ divides feminist scholarship into
    "reformist" and "revolutionary" approaches, and notes that few
    reformists working with the tradition have responded to this criticism
    of Christianity's core symbolism.  Feminist "revolutionaries" use the
    experience of women not only as a corrective but as a starting point and
    norm.  Free of the authorities of Judaism or Christianity, they attempt
    to create new symbols and traditions on the basis of their own
    perceptions of ultimate reality.  While it remains to be seen whether
    the writings of the revolutionaries--mainly concerned with new symbols
    and new forms of spirituality--will develop into more traditional forms
    of theology, the reformists face the deeper challenge of a "radical
    feminist transformation of Christianity"...

    In recent years, a number of publications have advocated what Christ
    calls the revolutionary approach.  Among them, Mary Daly's _Gyn/Ecology_
    and _Pure Lust_ are among the most powerful and provocative explorations
    of feminist analysis and spiritual transformation.  Others deal with
    witchcraft, Goddess worship, women's spiritual experiences in
    literature, in dream analysis, and in natural bodily processes.  The
    growth of Goddess worship and witchcraft, or feminist Wicca, has
    elicited criticism from Rosemary Ruether, who points out that the cult of
    the Great Mother, claimed by feminist Goddess devotees, emerged
    historically from a patriarchal culture and "has to do with putting
    kings on thrones of the world, not with liberating women or slaves."
    Similarly, witchcraft was never perceived in medieval times as involving
    a female diety nor were witches organized into cultic groups, as some
    proponents of feminist Wicca claim.  All historical religious traditions
    are biased, Ruether argues, and thus it is difficult to see how these
    "new" feminist religions are more radical than the transformations
    sought by Christian feminists who work with the critical or liberating
    traditions of the Bible.  We have seen that Ruether criticizes the
    revolutionary groups for separatism and reversal of domination,
    perpetuation of the nature/culture split in female/male symbolism,
    assignment of goodness to females and evil to males, and failure to work
    toward synthesis and transformation.  She adds that those who are
    alienated from Judaism and Christianity and the culture formed by them
    are nevertheless part of that culture.

	If they try to negate that culture completely, they find themselves
	without a genuine tradition with which to work, and they neglect
	those basic guidelines which the culture itself has developed
	through the long experience in order to avoid the pathological dead
	ends of human psychology.

    While sharply criticizing Judaism and Christianity, these religious
    feminists, Ruether argues, remain unself-critical: "instead of creating
    a more holistic alternative such feminist spiritualities succumb to the
    suppressed animus of patriarchal religious culture." (pages 95-97)

.36 - thanks for that info!

Speaking of pagans... :-)

"'Pagan' comes from the Latin 'paganus', which means a country dweller, and 
is itself derived from 'pagus', the Latin word for village or rural 
district. Similarly, 'heathen' originally meant a person who lived on the 
heath. Negative associations with these words are the end result of 
centuries of political struggles during which the major prophetic 
religions, notably Christianity, won a victory over the older polytheistic 
religions. In the West, often the last people to be converted to 
Christianity lived on the outskirts of populated areas and kept to the old 
ways. These were the Pagans and heathens--the word Pagan was a term of 
insult, meaning 'hick.'

"Pagan had become a derogatory term in Rome by the third century....
Centuries later the word 'Pagan' still suffers the consequences of
political and religious struggles, and dictionaries still define it to mean
a godless person or an unbeliever, instead of, simply, a member of a
different kind of religion." 

	-- Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, 
	Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today, 1979

D.

    "Matrilineal", "matriarchal", "matrilocal".  What's behind these words?

    "Matrilineal" means that people's lines of descent are through their
    mothers.  It's the original method of tracing ancestry.  Let's choose
    a beginning and look at how it develops:  A woman bears several
    children, girls and boys.  They are her children; she is their
    parent; they are each other's siblings.  The children grow up,
    marry, and the now-grown-women bear their own children.  The new
    batch of kids have the parent, child, and siblings relationships,
    and also have aunt-niece, aunt-nephew, uncle-niece, and uncle-nephew
    relationships in addition to the grandchild-grandparent relationship.
    Oops!  And the cousin relationship to each other.  (After this it
    gets complicated, but I think this gives you the basic idea.)  One
    of the really special relationships was that between an uncle and
    nephew.
    
    But! you're saying, But...but that's not everything!  You're missing--

    Yes, I know.  This method of relating people is *very* old.  It
    predates the awareness of the male role in reproduction.  It also
    extended long past it, even into historical times.  It isn't what
    we're used to, and it seems very obvious that it's leaving out the
    role of the father entirely, and so it seems `unnatural'.  Nevertheless,
    it works.

    "Matriarchal" means that control or rule of a tribe or culture descends
    from mother to daughter.  As I've mentioned before, anthropologists and
    archaeologists have been unable to find any matriarchal societies
    anywhere in human history.  So how can there be matrilineal descent
    without matriarchal rule?

    Imagine that some woman demonstrated what looked like a special tie
    to the Goddess.  She might have had a talent with green growing things,
    or a gift for healing, or great skill in the use of herbs.  She
    would have been made the special representative to the Goddess, as
    the High Priestess if you will -- or Queen, since there is no way to
    separate the two.  The Church is the State and vice versa.  The woman
    has special duties, so that her contact with the Goddess is spread
    throughout the tribe.  It is believed that the special tie is inherited
    by her daughters, especially her eldest daughter, and so she becomes
    Queen/High Priestess and has special duties in her turn.

    You'll notice that these are duties, not rights and privileges.  The
    Greeks complained that the people most competent to rule were always
    reluctant to take the job, and those least competent were always eager
    for it.  It is true today, and was true even before the Greeks settled
    on a name for themselves.  Rulership seems to have involved councils
    of elders, and town meetings, and things like that.

    What happened when a crisis arose and the people needed immediate
    decisions?  Well, the only crisis that requires immediacy and decisions
    involving trade-offs and organization is war.  Therefore, you choose
    a war leader.  (The Latin term for this is dux bellorum.  The Britons
    used to select a dux bellorum who controlled the armies of all the
    kings.  Arthur is believed to have been such a leader.)

    One evolution of this is selected kingship.  The man [sic] believed
    to be the best leader was married to the queen, and became the king
    and leader.  In the next generation, their eldest daughter becomes
    the new queen, and her husband becomes the king.  The king *is* the
    ruler; he was selected for the job, and confirmed in it by receiving
    the blessing of the Goddess, in the form of his marriage to Her High
    Priestess and Queen.

    So what happened to the sons of the old queen?  Why, they went out
    into the world to seek their fortunes, by marrying princesses.  Does
    this sound familiar?  It should; fairy tales are *very* old.

    The daughters staying put, sons venturing outside the society, descent
    being through the woman's line, and men from outside the society
    marrying into a family is all part of "matrilocal" societies.  Ruth,
    from the Bible, comes from such a culture.

    What happened when a king wanted his son to become king after him?
    Instead of sending the lad out to marry a foreign princess, he could
    be married to his oldest sister, the queen to be.  This worked very
    well for the Egyptians.  It was carried to an extreme by Ramses I.
    He married his sister, as usual, and ruled until her death.  Then,
    within the month, he married one of their daughters.  When she died,
    he married another, and when *she* died, he married a third.  (Ramses
    lived into his eighties.)  She outlived him.  Now do you understand
    the `mysterious' attraction of Cleopatra, who drew men like flies
    although she was not beautiful?  That's right; the man who married
    her would become pharaoh of Egypt.

    What happened if you were a strong man, leader of an army, and you
    conquered one of these societies?  How could you hope to exercise
    control over these people?  Right again.  You married their queen,
    by force if necessary.  Now does the Trojan War make more sense?
    Menelaus married Helen and was king.  Agamemnon married her sister,
    Clytemnestra, and was king.  Paris took Helen away, and Menelaus
    *had* to have her back.  While Agamemnon was gone, Clytemnestra
    took a new lover, Aegisthus, and when Agamemnon returned, he was
    killed by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, who then was king.

    						Ann B.

    "Patriarchal", "patrilineal".  Aren't these just the same terms and
    concepts as "matriarchal", and "matrilineal", but for men instead
    of women?

    Let's look at "patrilineal" first.  Here we have a new-born baby.

    	Q: Who is this child's mother?
    	A: The tired-looking woman at the other end of the umbilical cord.
    	Q: Ah.

    	Q: Who is this child's father?
    	A: ... Can I get back to you on that?

    Here, at the very end of the twentieth century of the Common Era, we
    are *starting* to be able to give an accurate answer to that question.

    Five thousand years ago, there was only one way to be sure of the
    father of a child.  You structured your *entire* society so that
    each woman was only sexually available to one man.  Period.  Although
    you could have just about any social organization (or lack of it)
    with matrilineal descent, once you opted for patrilineal descent,
    you start to limit possible social organizations.

    Since the purpose of controlling women was so that you knew whose
    children they bore�, it is clear that it was important to know
    the father of a child *before* it was born.  Why?  It could only
    matter if the support of the woman depended solely on the father
    of the child, and if the woman had no method of supporting herself.
    This implies that men have value and women do not.  This whole
    paragraph describes "patriarchy", a system in which every woman
    who can bear a child must belong to a man, belong physically,
    socially, and financially.  Otherwise, the patrilineal basis cannot
    be maintained, and the entire structure crumbles.

    Bizarre, isn't it?

    						Ann B.

    � "whose children they bore"  Notice how this phrase implies that
    the mother does not own the child and that the father does?  Isn't
    that an interesting coincidence?

    
    thanks, ann!
    

    
    Can someone explain to me what "matrifocal" means?
    
    I have the impression that matriarchal, or patriarchal, are social
    systems that imply that either the male or the female principle is
    valued more (in terms of power in that society) and are therefore,
    arguably, both flawed....
    
    Whereas a matrifocal society implies power equality in the society,
    but with a "religious" focus that values a female deity.....?
    'gail
    

    Gail I'll take a stab at it.  Matrifocal, focused on the mother or on
    women.
    
    Love of the Goddess does indeed take on many forms.  I've been a more
    or less solitary neopagan for some time.  For me celebrating the godess
    includes caring for my particular patches of earth, and celebrating the
    changes in the seasons and trying to flow with them rather than change
    them.  This includes my own as well as the earths.
    
    I don't exactly know how to explain all of what I feel in text form, as
    writing isn't my strong suit, but I'll borrow a quote from Margo Adler
    when she was speaking here in Colorado, "Paganism for me contains the
    juice in the mystery."  
    
    Meg
    
    

    The following is reprinted from the Religion conference, with the
    permission of the author.  It is entered as a response to the
    question about ther term, "matrifocal".
    
    						Ann B.
    
	EGYPT::SMITH            -< Gimbutas' work >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The January iissue of Moxie (magazine) has a fascinating article
    titled, "The Goddess:  Love Her or Leave" by Celeste Fremon.  Fremon 
    discusses the work of archeologist Marija Gimbutas, who discovered
    archeological evidence of ancient Goddess religions in Europe.  
    
    The article states that Gimbutas pointed out "that
    because these cultures were *matristic* (meaning female-identified or
    centered, not to be confused with *matriarchal*, or female-dominated),
    they were organized in a way quite different from the hierarchical,
    power-driven cultures that have prevailed throughout the rest of
    history.  It was an organization characterized by the concept of
    balance rather than domination.
    
    "(A fascinating side note: When archaeologists discovered large and
    richly ornamented tombs and burial sites containing the remains of
    women, they concluded they had stumbled upon early matriarchal
    societies.  In other words, they figured these societies were the same
    as male-dmonianted ones only reversed, with men in a dminished role and
    a woman as the Top Man, so to speak.  Then when they found no evidence
    that men were suppressed, they tossed out the whole theory and
    dismissed the female-significant tombs as anomalies they could not
    explain.)"
    
    Nancy

"Like Copernicus, who suggested the earth was not the center of the 
universe, work on the goddess is challenging the entire order of things, 
the whole sense of divinity and God on which everything else is based. It's 
liberating the spirituality and creativity of women, which is no small 
contribution.

"It's an extraordinary finding for the psychology of women because the 
concept of being dominated by hierarchies that have a sky god at [the] very 
apex has been part of patriarchal civilization forever. It's what allowed 
kings to rule by divine right. It's what allowed men to feel they have a 
right to dominion over the planet, women, children, nature. Women have 
grown up feeling that only men are created in the image of God, thus that 
women are less divine than the other sex and can be treated as lesser 
beings. It is empowering to women when they find out that the divinity was 
seen in a feminine form for 25,000 years."

		 -- Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., Jungian analyst and author 
		of Gods in Everyman, quoted in East West Magazine, December 1990

    
    I am a newcomer to this notefiles. Like another respondant, I am
    uncomfortable within my traditional RC background.  The *little*
    reading I have encountered on Wicca strikes a strong chord from within. 
    How do I access V2 and V1 of this file.. specifically to read notes
    V2-873 and V1-518?
    
    also, are there any other timid souls out there trying to make the jump
    from catholicism to a more enlightened (whoops! value judgement!)
    belief system?  (wicca or other) It's incredible to me the guilt I feel even READING
    about wicca, budhism, etc, let alone acting on the knowledge, or (perish the
    thought!) living it
    
    jam

    you can find them at
    
    MOMCAT::WOMANNOTES-V1
    and
    MOMCAT::WOMANNOTES-V2
    
    However, they are archived earlier versions of this file and are
    inactive (i.e. you cannot write to them, only read them).  
    
    -Jody
    

    and yes, indeed, there are many, many of us who were raised RC and 
    have happily shed the guilt to find our own sources of enlightenment. 
    Speaking as one ;-).  Have a hug, you're not alone.
    
    DougO

    You can say *that* again!  
    
    Jam,
    
    There are a lot of conferences "dedicated" to various religions.  If
    you look in VTX under EASYNOTES, then choose "Valuing differences" from
    the menu, you may be surprised!  One of the happiest (small) events in
    my DEClife was finding out that there was a QUAKER conference!
    
    Of course, it's pretty quiet.  (*8
    
    E Grace

    And now, to add V1 painlessly to your notebook, type KP7 � or
    the Select key again.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � "KP7" means the 7 on the Key Pad on the right of the keyboard.
    You knew that already?  Sorry, just being oversolicitous.

    Ann, I usually say 'press the 7 key on your key pad' because
    when I was a new noter I tried typing kp7 the letters and number
    to add a conference and couldn't understand what I was doing
    wrong!
    
    Bonnie

    you think THAT was silly, I heard from someone I trust about a cust.
    service person who once asked a confused LOTUS beginner to help her
    understand what was wrong with the customer's copy of LOTUS by asking
    him to send her a copy of the LOTUS disk.
    
    Sure 'nuff in the SnailMail there arrived a copy of the disk...
    
    ... a Xerox copy that is...
    
    (-: second hand info but funny nevertheless :-)

    FYI... (forwarded)
    
    ------------ Letter Body Part 2 - Text  ------------
     
    ABC-TV has just produced the pilot for a proposed series entitled "The
    Craft." It's not definite whether or not the show will actually go on
    the air, or even whether the pilot will be aired. Now is the time to
    act.
     
    The plot: A woman marries a man who is a Witch (although she doesn't
    know this) They have a baby, and she is told that it died at birth.
    However, what really happens is that the husband steals the baby, and
    it is passed from coven to coven all over the U.S. In each episode, the
    mother is in a different town try- ing to get her kid back alive from
    the nasty bad Witches.
     
    It has been suggested that we not object to the program on the basis
    that it is offensive; because that would be like promoting censorship.
    Rather, it should be stressed that if the show airs, it could cause
    lots of problems for a minor- ity group that is misunderstood enough as
    it is. In fact, my friends and I have been suggesting that a more
    true-to-life version would consist of a woman having her child taken
    away from her because she is found to be a Witch. It happens; you all
    know that.
     
    The address to write to is:
                             Rick Hull, director of dramatic series
    development
                             c/o ABC-TV
                             2040 Avenue of the Stars
                             Los Angeles, CA 90067
                             phone: (213) 557-7777
     
    I strongly urge you all to write. It doesn't have to be anything long
    or fancy. The idea is quantity, not quality. Pass this address on to
    your Craft friends. 
    Thanks a lot, and blessed be. 
    
    Jen

    Gag me!!!  Why is it that a misunderstood minority has to be clobbered
    and clobberd again.  I understand why Margot Adler said that she had
    abandodned the work "witch", as completely unredeemable, not because of
    the people involved in the religion, but other peoples perceptions.  
    
    This looks like they are taking off on the "satanist-cult-breeder and
    ritual-sex" myths that have been running around for centuries and have
    had a recent upsurge in the last few years.  
    
    Choke, cough and etc.  and several words that would get me set hidden.
    
    Meg

    re: .54
    
    >>This looks like they are taking off on the "satanist-cult-breeder and
    >>ritual-sex" myths that have been running around for centuries and have
    >>had a recent upsurge in the last few years.  
    
    Unfortunately, the satanic-cult-breeder incidences are not myth, they
    are reality.  I know a therapist who works, pretty much exclusively
    with survivors of satan-ritual-cult abuse.  She was working with
    survivors in Maine, *and had to move out of state* because she was
    getting death threats from cult members.    
    
    However, witch craft is NOT satanism, and I will certainly write a
    letter.
    
    The network is being reprehensibly irresponsible in airing this kind of
    show.
    

    There is a lot less to this "satanic-cult-breeder" story than meets
    the eye.  The "Skeptical Inquirer" has been running a series on
    the subject.  The most recent articles have been about therapists
    who have bought into this idea, and the articles have not been
    kind.  (So, if the therapist in .55 would like to set the record
    straight, she should contact CSICOP in Buffalo, New York.)
    
    						Ann B.

    I believe that most professionals who have worked to any degree with
    survivors of incest and other sexual child abuse, could and would
    confirm the existence of satanic cults and ritual abuse.
    
    There is lots of literature in the field. There is even a police
    officer in the Homicide division of the Los Angeles police department
    whose full time job it is to address Satanic Cult and Ritual Abuse
    crimes. 
    
    A Canadian author -Jonathan Kellerman has a PHD in Clinical Psychology.
    All his novels involve child abuse of one form or another. Several of
    them deal with Satanic cults. As I recall his bibliographies contains
    extensive reference to non-fictional literature etc in the field.
    
    Books by such people as Ellen Bass (The Courage to Heal) and Michael
    Lew (Victims No Longer) both have bibliographical references to Satanic
    Cults and Ritual Abuse.
    
    There is an organization Survivors of Incest Anonymous that has as one
    of its focuses Ritual Abuse and/or Satanic Cults.
    
    I have seen one estimate that fully 45% of people with Multiple
    Personality Disorder (Three Faces of Eve, When rabbit howls) have been
    subjected to Ritual Abuse in or out of Satanic Cults
    
    It represents the most extreme form of child abuse.
    
    				herb

    
    I'm confused. Why is a program about witches in a topic about the Love
    of the Goddess? Can't one be a lover of the Goddess without being a
    witch (just as one can be a witch without ever having heard of satan,
    that latter-day diabolicocal concept of patr. religions that sprang to
    life *long* after the Goddess arrived on the scene)?
    
    Or is the program just an attempt to discredit women, whatever they're
    up to ...
    
    D.

    The technique is called 'package dealing' as in lumping someone's
    points and arguments in with something acknowledged as evil.
    
    If you lump goddess-worship and witches in with satanism, you can 
    discredit the former in the eyes of those who don't bother to
    learn the difference. (Remember, most arguments are really aimed
    at the undecided folks sitting on the sidelines - _not_ the
    opposition.)

I put it in here mostly because I thought it was a subject of interest
to "lovers of the Goddess", many of whom are pagans and/or wiccans ('witches').
The TV show presents witches as evil which goes against what many wiccans
say witches really are/were.  ("witches heal" and all that.)

I was going to put it in "The Goddess" note butthat note was write-locked and
I was too impatient to wait for it to be unwrite-locked.  If you want to
put it in it's own note, or find a better place for it, feel free to ask the
mods, I don't care one way or another.

D!

    The goddess note is now write enabled

    
    - .1
    
    YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!! (four millennia later...)  ;-)
    
    D.