Notes From A Burning House

Rachel Bevilacqua is a minister in the Church of the SubGenius.

As with Buddhism, there is debate - surprisingly heated debate - over whether the Church (identifiable by its familiar pipe-smoking "Bob" icon) is actually a religion or not.  Theologians and performance artists and writers have exercised this debate since the Church appeared around 1979. 

If its a religion, it is a tongue-in-cheek religion ; a performance-art religion; a prank religion.  The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is just a new kid on the block compared to "Bob."  There "devivals" are irreverent gatherings showcasing performance art, preposterous sermons by preposterous "ministers" of the Church, an uproariously silly theology, an injunction to play pranks and release laughter throughout the world; there is often live music and wacky costumes.  The kind of things you want to photograph. 

At a festival celebrating a SubGenius holiday that takes place in July, Rachel Bevilacqua, aka Rev. Mary Magdalen, was photographed wearing skimpy yet humorous costumes, some of which featured her wearing a fake goat head. 

Judge James P. Punch didn’t find the photographs very funny.  That’s fair enough.  He is reputed to be a very devout Catholic, and he was personally very offended by photos that showed Bevilacqua participating in a spoof of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ.

Unfortunately, Bevilacqua was in the midst of a custody battle when Judge Punch saw the pictures.  In February, when Bevilacqua’s ex-husband presented the photos (which had appeared on the internet), Judge Punch blew a rod and began yelling at her in court.  He called her a "pervert," accused her of participating in "sex orgies," and suggested that she suffered from "severe mental illness." 

Then he ordered her to have no contact with her son, none at all, effective immediately. 

Here is a more detailed history of the case, as told by Bevilacqua.  When the press got hold of this, the asshole judge recused himself, but this woman has still been deprived of custody and now must go through a slow and expensive process of proving herself fit as a mother, begging for donations to her legal fund, even though she is not alleged to have violated any laws nor to have abused or neglected her child. 

It’s really very simple: the court took her kid away from her because of her religion.  Or her performance art, if you like.  Whether this is a story about freedom of religion or freedom of expression, it’s clearly a case of injustice.

 

The G.O.P. complains about "activist judges."  Here is one that needs to be impeached.

Last night I was talking about this turn of events last night on a break during a film shoot.  Incredibly, two citizens of the United States of America listened and then asked me, "What’s the big deal?  Why are you bothered by this?"

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 24th, 2006 at 7:09 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.