I’ve written two pieces in the McGill Daily that I particularly want to promote – one dispelling myths about Christianity’s relationship with queer people and another on the Conservative Party of Canada’s shift away from saying “gender equality” towards saying “the equality of women and men” or ”equality betewen men and women.” I’m not going to repost things from the Daily again until after my column is over, to encourage people to actually visit their site.
I’m almost done with law school applications, thankfully. So I should be posting a bit more, especially since I’m going to be around computers a lot when I’m writing my term papers.
I found an old-ish Newsweek piece entitled “We Are All Hindus Now.” This captures my sense of what’s actually going on in religious discourse: people are actually becoming more accepting of other religious viewpoints. “According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that “many religions can lead to eternal life”—including 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves “spiritual, not religious,” according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005.” (Emphasis mine.) Indeed, at times I like to think of each religion’s thought as being a different language to understand a greater truth (And I don’t think that’s contradictory of Christ - also identified with the Word or the Logos - as “the way, the truth”). But my thinking’s rarely constant…
Let me let you into a bit of a secret: authoritarian rule is particularly bad for queer people. Take a look at the coup in Honduras (Bilerico). Who got hit harder? Trans people. And it’s important to recognize that it’s not enough to look at “queer issues” or “LGBT issues” as separate from other politics – we have to look at other issues as well for disparate queer impacts.
Bilerico has pieces on a number of excellent topics, including “the sexual politics of the hug” – referring to how a transwoman got slotted into a ‘male’ role when interacting with a former (cis woman) lover – and the problem of queer people excluding others and an excellent bit of ridicule of Antonin Scalia and “originalism.”
Feministing has another wonderful Ask Professor Foxy on how transmen can find gay male prospects. It reminds me why I’m so glad I’m already happily in a relationship and don’t have to go through the dating scene as a trans person. It also has a post on suicide for trans people, which is a particularly serious problem – I’ve been there; I know what it’s like.
I’ve been reading Sameul Huntington (of Clash of Civilizations fame)’s Political Order in Changing Societies. While I’m not entirely sure whether I agree with Huntington’s overall position on development, this book has a very fascinating passage contrasting the development of American institutions with those of Europe (particularly Britain).
The U.S. effectively developed political institutions out of the Tudor or more specifically Elizabethan era of England (p. 96). It did not share in many of the developments in European politics. This explains many particular features of the American political system, including the early militia system rather than developing standing armies early, a fused head of state and head of government, the persistance of “fundamental law” thinking, etc. In the U.S., politics is highly decentralized. This has some advantages; it can rightly claim to be preventing new moves towards tyranny (though, of course, if someone enacts a tyrannical law, it’s difficult to get rid of).
Canada, in contrast, developed its institutions much later than the U.S. (under the 1867 British North America Act, which became Canada’s first constitution). Canada didn’t evolve out of Tudor England. Now, I’m not going to comment on the implications of having the head of government recommend someone as head of state to a foreign-based monarchy, which ultimately approves the head of state; however, having a separation between the head of state and head of government removes certain limits on what the head of government can do (since they no longer need to wear the head of state hat) and, furthermore, it imposes certain constraints on what the head of state and government can do by delineating more specialized powers. The U.S.-model fused head of state and government is actually problematic. More importantly, Canada inherited a more or less unicameral legislature (there is a Canadian Senate, but it’s significantly weaker than the U.S. Senate, following the Westminster model). This removes a significant obstacle to passing legislation that exists in the U.S.: the other house of the legislature.
This has some very real implications for trans people, both positive and negative.
For example, militaries frequently play a role in targeting members of marginalized populations during wartime (see the UN report linked to on this blog). [Of course, the counterpoint is that having a standing army can prevent armed conflict, and I see merit in this argument; however, in my view, no institution can exist without playing some sort of role, and a standing army will find functions even in "peacetime" - this may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view.] As a result, whether a country has a standing army or a militia system has very real implications for trans people.
However, what seems far more significant to me is that American political institutions are so dispersed that it’s nearly impossible to make significant progress legislatively in a way that isn’t present in more modern political systems . At present, even though there’s wide public support for a number of pro-LGBT equality policies, such as ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and enacting nondiscrimination laws (or, really, just about everything other than marriage), there has been little legislative progress, apart from the recent passage of federal hate crimes legislation. Furthermore, the health care bill, which is certainly relevant to a large number of queer people, is facing tremendous difficulties getting through Congress. In contrast, Canada, with an effectively unicameral legislature, was able to pass health care reform on a federal level in the 1960s, following its establishment on a provincial level under the agrarian socialist CCF in Saskatchewan.
Now, as someone socialized in America, I have a great deal of reverence for the U.S. Constitution; however, this reverence should not overtake pragmatism. If the institutions aren’t working quite right, we should change them. If the system is no longer working, for example by providing no opportunity to change the institutions by constitutional amendment, we should change that. However, this is such a taboo in the U.S. that I’m not sure that this is even worth advocating. For the moment, then, it probably makes more sense to think about what would make Canada a better system for trans people.
Karen Armstrong wrote an excellent piece on religion over at Foreign Policy. It criticizes Dawkins and ilk while calling for actual study of religion as a human phenomenon. I’ve decided to provide some excerpts and commentary, section by section, since this article shares many ideas I also have about religion.
I. “God Is Dead.”
No…We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives. Theological ideas come and go, but the quest for meaning continues. So God isn’t going anywhere. And when we treat religion as something to be derided, dismissed, or destroyed, we risk amplifying its worst faults. Whether we like it or not, God is here to stay, and it’s time we found a way to live with him in a balanced, compassionate manner.
I’m actually contemplating writing a piece on why religion will never end, no matter how far science advances. This isn’t really surprising if you accept the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, but that’s a concept that requires more explanation and analysis than the Wikipedia page provides. Regardless, the approach of attacking religion, Armstrong argues, “risk[s] amplifying its worst faults”. I agree. All you have to do is look at how fundamentalist Christians perceive themselves a persecuted in present day and how particular atheists, in the mold of Dawkins, attack religion to observe this phenomenon.
II. “God and Politics Shouldn’t Mix.”
Not necessarily. Theologically illiterate politicians have long given religion a bad name. An inadequate understanding of God that reduces “him” to an idol in our own image who gives our likes and dislikes sacred sanction is the worst form of spiritual tyranny. Such arrogance has led to atrocities like the Crusades. The rise of secularism in government was meant to check this tendency, but secularism itself has created new demons now inflicting themselves on the world.
Armstrong gives the rapid secularization of much of the developing world as an example of these “new demons”; such moves have made secularization into the enemy for quite a few religious people, for example, in the Middle East. Furthermore, over-secularization (or perhaps I should say overly “hard” secularization) has led to situations such as France, in which the state views no role for religion in the public sphere and actively attempts to quash religion in certain respects, such as outlawing the wearing of religious symbols in schools. Such attitudes only deepen the rift between France’s secular “majority” and its predominantly Muslim population (since they’re undoubtedly the ones targeted under these laws – see also the niqab/burqa/hijab debate). This section also notes the ways in which Islam provides support for democracy, e.g. the concept of shura.
III. “God Breeds Violence and Intolerance.”
No, humans do…”religious” wars, no matter how modern the tools, always begin as political ones. This happened in Europe during the 17th century, and it has happened today in the Middle East, where the Palestinian national movement has evolved from a leftist-secular to an increasingly Islamically articulated nationalism. Even the actions of so-called jihadists have been inspired by politics, not God. In a study of suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004, American scholar Robert Pape concluded that 95 percent were motivated by a clear strategic objective: to force modern democracies to withdraw from territory the assailants regard as their national homeland.
One of the earliest lessons I had in political science was that “religious” wars often have other motives, such as the pursuit of territory or economic factors or diverting a population’s attention away from domestic troubles…or a perceived fear for a group’s survival:
Fundamentalism is not conservative. Rather, it is highly innovative — even heretical — because it always develops in response to a perceived crisis. In their anxiety, some fundamentalists distort the tradition they are trying to defend…All fundamentalism — whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim — is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation.
We absolutely need to address fundamentalism – and, more importantly to understand it. The struggle against fundamentalism in all forms is one of the pressing issues of Western society in our times. However, religion is not inherently fundamentalist, and to denigrate “religion” as a whole for the actions of fundamentalists is a case of harmful over-generalization. Furthermore, we should not give credence to fundamentalists for being somehow more “true” to the principles of the religion or being free of innovation or being “conservative”; fundamentalism is a contemporary creature and must be treated as such.
IV. “God Is for the Poor and Ignorant.”
No.
Armstrong actually seems to get off-topic, since this starts off as a critique of beliefs that religion is the “opiate of the masses” etc. etc.; however, its tangent into discussing religious critiques of poverty is also well-placed. It should also be noted, however, that many intellectuals have also held religious beliefs – some clichés of this would be C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien. Though I’m a bit uncomfortable reading Armstrong’s characterizing of major religions (including Christianity) as market-friendly, but hey, you can’t have it all…
V. “God Is Bad for Women.”
Yes.
Wait, uh, what? God, in my understanding, doesn’t advocate human foibles regarding gender…
Even when a tradition began positively for women (as in Christianity and Islam), within a few generations men dragged it back to the old patriarchy. But this is changing. Women in all faiths are challenging their men on the grounds of the egalitarianism that is one of the best characteristics of all these religious traditions.
Oh…that I can agree with. Religion is at all times a human endeavour, and we must realize that any human has ever thought or done in religion could be wrong because of this. I find it a supreme irony that religions such as Christianity and Islam have come to be patriarchal, since their root teachings included a powerful message for the social advancement of women…
VI. “God Is the Enemy of Science.”
He doesn’t have to be. Science has become an enemy to fundamentalist Christians who campaign against the teaching of evolution in public schools and stem-cell research because they seem to conflict with biblical teaching. But their reading of scripture is unprecedentedly literal…Ironically, it was the empirical emphasis of modern science that encouraged many to regard God and religious language as fact rather than symbol, thus forcing religion into an overly rational, dogmatic, and alien literalism.
Before science, the idea of biblical literalism in the sense of reading the Bible as literally being a scientific or empirical account of what happened wouldn’t have existed; the interpretation of it as myth or narrative or allegory or meaningful stories or moral lessons or spiritual accounts wouldn’t have fallen to literalism without the scientific revolution. Indeed, I think accepting this sort of modern sense of the Bible, in which it’s put up against science and we have to judge between the two, is very much a part of both contemporary atheism and Christian fundamentalism, even though they completely disagree over what we should do about it.à
VII. “God Is Incompatible with Democracy.”
No…Nor is sharia law the rigid system that many Westerners deplore. Muslim reformers, such as Sheikh Ali Gomaa and Tariq Ramadan, argue that it must be reviewed in the light of changing social circumstances. A fatwa is not universally binding like a papal edict; rather, it simply expresses the opinion of the mufti who issues it. Muslims can choose which fatwas they adopt and thus participate in a flexible free market of religious thought, just as Americans can choose which church they attend.
That Armstrong even has to address this shows a gross misunderstanding of religion (particularly Islam, given the citing of Huntington). Notably, Sharia has the potential for both liberation and oppression. It is not inherently a container of certain bigoted viewpoints. Sharia also has a number of bases, such as consensus or equality that really shouldn’t be controversial. But it seems like most people just think of it as bigotry and oppression, particularly against women (though that’s usually bound up in a neo-imperialist mindset).
I’m currently working on my own observations on contemporary religion – but it seems like Armstrong and others have already done much of the work. I will try to mention more such people later on this blog. However, I will also approach the topic very much considering the world from my own position, particularly as a trans person, which I’ve essentially glossed over in this post.
I’m currently in the middle of a rather stressful time of the semester – I have a considerable amount of work to do (though it’s all term papers due in December now), in addition to my law school applications. So I’m not sure how frequent my posts are going to be, at least until those important tasks are off my plate.
I’ve added three new blogs to my blogroll – Walking With Integrity, Integrity USA’s blog (Integrity USA being a group that advocates for LGBT Epsicopalians), TransEpiscopal (a trans-specific Episcopalian group blog) and Aristotle’s Lackey, a blog by a friend and fellow Daily columnist.
TransEpiscopal has a link to a theological reflection on coming out. Here are some parts I particularly empathized with: “Sometimes it really sucks to be an empath – to feel other people’s pain so easily…To feel other people’s pain and be able to share it is both a blessing and a curse.” This is a particular issue in coming out, since other people can feel very hurt or find themselves in emotional upheaval. Also, “For me, coming to terms with my gender identity needed a spiritual component. This isn’t something I could have done without a religious and spiritual support network…For many years, I struggled to keep sexuality and gender identity as far apart from each other as I could.”
Integrity USA posted a link to Bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson’s interview on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. I really want to watch it, but I’m on a school computer and don’t have headphones.
CNN reports on India’s recent move to allow “third gender” identification in voter registration (via my friend who authors Aristotle’s Lackey).
Pam’s House Blend reports on a Buenos Aires judge’s ruling that two men should be allowed to marry, which would make Buenos Aires the first jurisdiction in Latin America to achieve marriage equality. Since I’m currently writing on queer politics in Uruguay, which has been perhaps the most progressive country in the region on queer issues, for my Latin American politics class, this is a particularly notable event, since it’s happening right next door.
Phil Reese at Bilerico writes on the need in the U.S. to target Blue Dog Democrats in primary campaigns – or at least threaten to do so in order to hold their feet to the fire long enough pass necessary legislation, such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is hopefully going to pass sometime next year. Frankly, I believe the queer community should fund primary challengers to Blue Dogs regardless of whether we get their support; they’ve already done too much damage to be reliable legislative partners.
