I'm not so sure about that

There seems to be a prevailing attitude on the part of some, that religious institutions and religious people should be held accountable for acts of violence or harassment towards homosexuals.  There seems to be little effort to determine whether people who commit acts of violence towards gays are actually from a religious background.  Rather, there is the assumption that religious idealogy leads to violence against gays (with little or no evidence), and that this assumption justifies pressuring religious people and institutions into changing their beliefs.  

Well, I seem to be blessed with a good memory, at least in some respects, and I remember being in junior high school and hearing gay slurs. Looking back, I didn't get the sense that the people uttering those comments were particularly religious.  I got the sense they were idiots (and I mean no disrespect to mentally disabled people when I say that).  As a quiet Christian kid, to be honest, I would not have even really understood what they were saying, and those words would not have been acceptable to me, or part of my vocabulary. As an adult, I'm inclined to think that bullying of gays or more likely, the appearance of being gay, has more to do with adolescent insecurity and fears about their own emerging sexuality and emotional confusion that seems to characterize those years.  Adolescent anxiety combined with immature behavior and peer pressure, I suspect, has more to do with gay bashing than religious influence. 

But I want to say something else here.  Firstly, I want to ask a question.  Do people really think that little children sitting in Sunday school are being told to love their neighbour, love people and be kind to people, but then those people over there, be mean to those people?  Is that what people think? I remember someone saying that if you look historically at the list of problems in schools, discipline, violence, and so forth, that you can almost trace to the year, that when behavior problems started going up, was when religious instruction was taken out.  Now, I'm not arguing for religious instruction in schools here, and you can look up the statistics for yourself, but I would be inclined to predict that religious instruction is more likely to affect social behavior positively than negatively. And the reason why I believe this is because I see that positive influence in myself on an ongoing basis. Every week that I go to church I leave thinking that I am so glad I went, even when I didn't want to go, that I'm better for having gone.  My week seems to get off on the right foot.  I feel better about myself.  I feel better mentally and emotionally, not to mention spiritually of course, and I'm reminded that I am commanded to love and care for others, despite my sometimes cranky nature. I'm reminded that I have a responsibility not only to myself, but that I am called to love and serve others. And that's pretty much what the medical evidence shows, that people who are practicing in their faith are healthier and happier than those who are not regularly involved in a faith community. I believe the evidence may also show that those practicing their faith tend to give back more to their communities, but I'll have to check that one.  All this despite whatever tendency I personally might have towards isolation and despair. Maybe that's why I feel a certain affection for the new atheists, because I see a lot of myself in them.  My inner curmudgeon is Christopher Hitchens (lol).  If I wasn't a Christian, I am quite sure that I would be a very bitter and cynical person.  I might even find myself doing something like writing a book trashing Mother Theresa, but I digress.  Nobody's that nice. Nobody could possibly be that nice.  She must have another motive somewhere (lol).  Grumble grumble grumble.

What I'm trying to get at is this.  I think contrary to popular assumption, more often than not religion is a reminder to people of how to treat ourselves and others, to take care of ourselves and the larger community, and I think we as human beings need those reminders.  We need to be reminded of ethical standards, and it is for this reason that I would be more inclined to guess, generally speaking, that it is more likely to be a child that doesn't have a religious influence in their lives, than one who does, who is more likely to bully another child who appears weaker than them.  Please don't misunderstand me,  I'm not saying that non-religious people do not teach their kids ethical standards, but it would be one less place that they would be receiving that instruction on a regular basis.  Maybe I should rephrase that, some people have naturally gracious personalities, and some people, children especially, seem to need more reinforcement than others, but I would expect to see a lower incidence of bullying on a large sample of children from faith communities over not having a faith background, contrary to the popular assumption which seems to imply the opposite conclusion.

Finally, something to think about, why from an evolutionary perspective should I be concerned with the well-being of someone in a far off corner of the world, with no relation to me or someone who is weaker than me, etc., also with no relation to me, who may be competing with me for limited resources? To answer my own question, because that person is created in the image of God, as am I, and therefore all people have an intrinsic worth, and should not be degraded or humiliated, despite whatever base instincts we all possess. I find it very interesting that public schools, void of religious training as they claim to be, now talk about being communities of character, etc.  Why, because they have to, because we, unlike our animal cousins, cannot seem to get away from ethical issues which demand the moral training of children. Why is that, and what is the difference anyway, between secular ethics and religious training on a practical everyday level? I'm betting that if you looked at secular ethical training, it would have many common characteristics and content with religious training. But the question is, which is the stronger reminder, and which has the deeper grounding or coherence? Don't bully people because that's not nice, even as it becomes increasingly clear as the child gets older, that the way of the world is more often about competition than cooperation, or treat people as you wish to be treated, because one day you will stand before an almighty God, who knows your every thought, word and deed? One difference between secular ethical training and traditional religious training would be that the Muslim or the Christian or the Jewish kid believes that they will one day be held accountable for their actions, even if that smaller and weaker kid is just a little lower on the pecking order, the natural order, and even if no one is looking.

Understanding our Differences

Desensitization of homosexual behavior seems to be the goal of a number of images I have observed of late, most recently a series of ads put out by the Benetton clothing company depicting religious and political leaders in homosexual embraces. That'll go over well, I thought to myself, shaking my head, when I saw the one with the Pope and a leading imam.  I think Benetton needs a class in worldview relations and to demonstrate what I mean I'd like to use a little analogy.

Imagine for a moment that we have two groups of people, the bacon-eaters and the non bacon-eaters.  I hope I'm not offending anybody with this analogy.   The bacon-eaters believe right down to their core that they were born to eat bacon.  They insist on it. It is how they define themselves individually and collectively. The non bacon-eaters believe right down to their core that eating bacon is down right wrong. They insist on it too.  It is how they define themselves as individuals and collectively -too. The bacon-eaters as a minority feel discriminated against, in a majority non bacon-eater world and feel the need to convince the non-bacon eaters and everyone else that their anti-bacon stance is discriminatory and proceed to place images of people eating bacon in key places in hopes to influence people for the better they figure.  They call the non bacon-eaters names like baconophobe, saying you are anti-bacon, you hate all bacon-eaters!  You are bad you non bacon-eaters, you need to change and accept all people whether they eat bacon or not! How well do you think that's going to work?

So continuing with the analogy, we have two people, one is a bacon-eater, we'll call him Frank.  One is a non bacon-eater, we'll call him Dan. Frank is very mad at Dan because he knows he is an ultra conservative non bacon-eater and he himself is a bacon eater activist.  They happen to work at the same grocery store and have lunch in the same lunch room.  Frank decides that he is going to convince Dan once and for all of his need to accept bacon whole heartedly and proceeds to put posters of bacon all over the lunch room, on the walls, on the fridge, and in Dan's sandwich.  Okay I'd better stop now.  How do you think this is going to make Dan feel? Oh, and did I mention that Dan's family hasn't been eating bacon for 3500 years? Hmmn. And then Frank proceeds to be upset when Dan declines to lend him 20 bucks. Anybody see where I'm going with this? What makes the bacon eaters so convinced that if they put up enough posters of bacon that the non bacon-eaters are going to start eating bacon after 3500 years?  Just asking.

But I do have an idea, what if Frank, rather than trying to change Dan's mind about Bacon, went to Dan and said " Dan,  I understand that you can't eat bacon, because that is your personal beliefs, that is how you identify yourself, but can you also understand Dan, that I was born to eat bacon! That is how I define myself.  That is how bacon-eaters define themselves. Can we respect our differences Dan, you're right not to eat bacon, my right to eat bacon, and agree to disagree here?" Would that work better?

I don't know.  I can't speak for other people but I can tell you as a theologically conservative Christian and a social conservative at heart, that debasing my deepest beliefs and convictions just leaves me feeling hurt and angry and frustrated.  It doesn't change my mind about anything.  It just drives a wedge.  For me, what got me thinking about this issue in a different way, was when I began to understand my own religious history, and how it was foundational religious concepts, followed by religious wars between Catholics and protestants in Europe that ultimately paved the way for the development of human rights and minority rights in the western world.  Speaking to religious minorities here, what if we were to think of gay rights in the way that we think of religious rights?  That we as Christians or Jews or Muslims have deep differences between ourselves and yet we respect each others right to disagree, to worship differently.  Yeah I know, we're all afraid of that slippery slope (when everything becomes an issue of individual rights), but I just don't see this culture war leading to anything good.  I see it dividing people.  And let me say as an evangelical Christian that contrary to what the mainstream media might think, I know the heart of evangelical Christians.  The deepest desire of serious Christians is to reach out to people with the Gospel, to love people, it's not to hate anybody.  So to my brothers and sisters in Christ, what better witness to the gay community, than to let them know that we love and accept them as people, to support gay rights, as a way of supporting the person firstly. 

The Jews were a tiny minority in a sea of polytheism historically.  Historically the early church was revolutionary because it stood in such sharp contrast to the culture and the social conditions of the Greco-Roman world.  Do we? When I read the Bible, both Old and New testaments, I don't see a God that is about forcing people to behave morally.  I see a God that is about transformation from the inside out.  We're human beings, as human beings God gives us the ability to make choices, he doesn't force those changes from the outside in.  He invites us into a relationship, and we're changed by that relationship. Why are we forcing people who aren't Christians to act as Christians?  How well is that going to work?  Why not instead support the basic human rights of people firstly, so that they can believe it when we tell them we love them, and invite them into a relationship with us?

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/16/vatican-takes-benetton-to-court-over-advert-showing-pope-kissing-eygptian-imam/

Ending the Culture War

I think I might be changing how I look at some things.  Scares me.  I'm afraid I'm wrong.  It's not easy when you realize that you might be putting yourself right smack dab in the middle of a very heated and difficult conversation, if it is a conversation.
 
I was just listening to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech."  It made me cry as it did when I last listened to it.  Then I was in my early twenties and living in a L'Arche community.  Now I am in my late thirties with a family of my own.  It must have taken so much courage for him to stand up and say those words in the middle of a very hostile time.  What I remember hearing about Martin Luther King from people who worked with him is that he was actually a very quiet person," not at all at ease with people, but when he stood up to speak... for all men are created equal!" I remember a blogger commenting that their visit to a museum dedicated to Dr. King, that the thing that they had left thinking was that he had just been living out his beliefs as a Christian.  Baptist minister, son and grandson of  Baptist ministers, he had a Biblical understanding and hope and yearning for Biblical justice.  He understood that his nation's history and western history had been founded and shaped by Biblical concepts. And so he was able to draw from that well to speak to a larger Christian society who would have also understood, at least more than most would today, the references to scripture that he was quoting.

I left a church when I was 15 because it supported segregation. I was never really a member anyway I suppose, after all I was Catholic and they were Baptist. They were from the southern United States, I was Canadian.  It's funny to me now, when I look back at some of the experiences that shaped me from those years.  How painful it was, to be told as a Catholic kid at a Bible camp, that all Catholics were going to hell, that I was going to hell for wearing jeans and listening to rawk music (with a self assured southern drawl).  Only to go home to be screamed at by your unstable controlling Catholic mother, that you are being brainwashed by Baptists, who the bishop no less, has just confirmed to her, "can be a cult."  How painfully difficult, and yet it was during those years that I really found my faith, and years later I realized that I knew how to talk to protestants and I knew how to talk to Catholics as well. Now I find myself in a similar situation, where I understand social conservatives, because I am one in many respects, and I'm beginning to understand where the gay community is coming from too.

My understanding of how human rights developed in the western world is that the key concept is Judeo-Christian, that human beings are equal because they are created in the image of God.  If you stop to think about it, this is certainly not an evolutionary idea, or an enlightenment idea, because from an evolutionary worldview people (or members of a species) are not equal because some members are stronger, brighter, faster than others.  The enlightenment focused on humanity's potential for and through, reason.  Some people have more reasoning ability than others.  No, it is neither.  It is a distinctly Judeo-Christian concept.  That all people are equal, black or white, Jew or Gentile, homosexual or straight, male or female, rich or poor, disabled or abled, street person or Queen of England, because they are created in the image of God. Because God desires to know each of them, loves each of them, counts the hairs on the head of each of them. It is this foundation that forms the basis for western egalitarianism. That concept began to shape western society, and governance (as it was Christianized after Constantine), and as a consequence of the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation between Catholics and Protestants, both began to realize that the cost was too great, and so began the concept of religious freedom and rights.  Understandably, with the United States with a more Protestant heritage, wanted to enshrine those religious rights with the separation of church and state.  My understanding is that it was not intended to mean what it has come to mean, almost exclusively freedom from religion.  It was intended to keep one denomination from gaining control and persecuting other denominations.  This certainly makes sense when viewed through an historical context.

As a social conservative I understand where social conservatives are coming from regarding traditional marriage.  They're not crazy, for the record, there is actually a lot of research to back up much of what they are saying.  Societies need traditional marriage.  It is a built-in organic social safety net, it was the social safety net before there were social safety nets. It makes sense that religion, being a stabilizer in societies would want to promote traditional marriage with an understanding for example, that the child born out of wedlock, or growing up in poverty without a father, would be at a disadvantage.  I understood this as a young person because I was that kid from the wrong side of the tracks who knew all too well how difficult it was to struggle against a broken background.  That, and probably my fear of hell from the Baptists (LOL) kept me on the straight and narrow and I became a true conservative.  I worked hard, pulled myself up by my bootstraps, worked to put myself through university, left home and kept working, all this to be told when I was finally getting somewhere, newly married with my own new place, that I was now a bigot and a hatemonger.  Congratulations!  And I was mad as hell, to be quite frank.  I stood on the lawn of the Canadian Parliament buildings with my arms crossed demanding the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage-for the next kid I figured....until I began to realize that this culture war just isn't working.

Just like the Catholics and the Protestants began to realize that killing each other in the name of a swordless Jesus, for a Jesus that said that his kingdom was not of this world, I'm beginning to think that forcing people to share your values, who frankly don't share your values and who probably never will share your values is rather counter-productive. Especially when those people are telling you they want nothing to do with Christianity because of the religious right.  As an evangelical Christian who's heart's desire is to reach out to hurting people and see lives transformed by the Gospel, yeah that seems rather counter-productive.

What if the sign outside the abortion clinic said " Let us serve you, " or "How can we help you?" What if the church got behind gay rights as a way of saying that God loves homosexuals. What if the overwhelming majority of signs at a gay pride parade said " We're here to support the person." What if we focused less on the sin and began to focus more on loving the sinner, less on preserving traditional marriage, less on legislation, and more on supporting the people in our neighborhoods who's paradigms may not fit our own?  I was thinking the other day, if I was someone who was struggling with same sex attraction, who'd never set foot in a church, how would I know that Jesus loved me?  How would I know that I was welcome in a church, in any church?  I wasn't thinking that when I was standing on Parliament hill defending the traditional definition of marriage, but I'm beginning to look at the church from the outside looking in, and I'm remembering how that lonely fifteen year old kid, myself, stood on the doorstep of that Baptist church for a very long time in the cold, hearing the Christmas Party with the sweets and the lovely sweaters and the skirts and the lovely southern manners, only to finally walk away, alone. They didn't really want to know me, I knew it. They didn't believe I was really a Christian, how could I be, after all, I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt.