I am thoroughly sick of people who think that they know what God says.
A typical example would people from Westborough Baptist Church who have signs saying 'God hates fags', 'God hates America', etc.. On the other hand, in a direct response to this there was a billboard poster which said '"Contrary to popular belief, I don't hate anyone who is gay." - God'. While the second example is certainly preferable, I feel that there is a problem with it as well, because it too, like the WBC signs, tries to speak for God.
Recently on a discussion forum I saw someone say that it is not in God's nature to go against His word. There are three assumptions being made there: 1. that this person knows what the nature of God is; 2. that the Bible is indeed God's inspired word; and 3. that this person's interpretation of 'God's word' is correct.
What angers me so much about this kind of thing is that people just throw around statements of "God says this..." and "God says that...", as though those are valid arguments. If you quote anyone else you have to be able to reference your sources and provide proof that, yes, it is what they said, at this time and place, etc.. But with God people think they can just say "God says...", and that is enough. Anytime someone tells me what God says I want to hear a full recount of their encounter with Him, or to be provided with Bible chapter and verse, along with extensive commentary from Biblical scholars and theologians, at the very least.
Really though, I wish people could just be honest and say "I think..." instead of "God says...", or maybe even "I think that God says...". If people would just own their opinions we wouldn't have this problem.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
4. ON REFUGEES
A wonderful change has just taken place in Australia. We now have fast-track onshore processing, and a definite possibility of bridging visas for refugees. This is hugely different from the previous slow, off-shore processing, which was neither humane nor economical. While I am overjoyed by the change, I can't help but be a little bit disgusted by the way in which it came about.
This link shows Julia Gillard grudgingly announcing that they will revert to onshore asylum processing, as a kind of last resort. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-13/government-reverts-to-onshore-asylum-processing/3570302 Not only that, but she continues to speak in favour of the Malaysia 'Solution', which a High Court ruling found to be inhumane and unethical. She even said that it is in "the national interest". Well excuse me Ms Gillard, but if a system proven to be physically and psychologically unsafe is in the national interest, I think the nation needs to get over itself and look after the interests of others. And surely we should be especially concerned about the interests of those who are helpless, who have been on a very dangerous journey even to get here, and who have come specifically to us to seek asylum.
Of course, this kind of idiocy isn't new. The Australian Government's policies regarding refugees have been consistently horrendous, and looking at our track record only makes today's change seem like even more of a leap forward, when really it's simple common sense which should have been implemented years ago.
I am very happy that things have been decided in favour of humane practice (why it was ever otherwise I still don't know), but I am also very angry that it has been treated as a terrible thing. And of course, another election will come around, and the fear-mongering will begin. We'll all be fed mind-numbingly stupid fairy tales about the scary 'boat people', and both major parties will make promises to keep them away. And while the politicians say that their aim is to stop people-smuggling, it is all too evident that what they are really trying to do is play off Australian's fears, which are born of ignorance, in order to win votes.
This link shows Julia Gillard grudgingly announcing that they will revert to onshore asylum processing, as a kind of last resort. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-13/government-reverts-to-onshore-asylum-processing/3570302 Not only that, but she continues to speak in favour of the Malaysia 'Solution', which a High Court ruling found to be inhumane and unethical. She even said that it is in "the national interest". Well excuse me Ms Gillard, but if a system proven to be physically and psychologically unsafe is in the national interest, I think the nation needs to get over itself and look after the interests of others. And surely we should be especially concerned about the interests of those who are helpless, who have been on a very dangerous journey even to get here, and who have come specifically to us to seek asylum.
Of course, this kind of idiocy isn't new. The Australian Government's policies regarding refugees have been consistently horrendous, and looking at our track record only makes today's change seem like even more of a leap forward, when really it's simple common sense which should have been implemented years ago.
I am very happy that things have been decided in favour of humane practice (why it was ever otherwise I still don't know), but I am also very angry that it has been treated as a terrible thing. And of course, another election will come around, and the fear-mongering will begin. We'll all be fed mind-numbingly stupid fairy tales about the scary 'boat people', and both major parties will make promises to keep them away. And while the politicians say that their aim is to stop people-smuggling, it is all too evident that what they are really trying to do is play off Australian's fears, which are born of ignorance, in order to win votes.
Friday, 30 September 2011
3. ON CHRISTIANITY AND SEXUALITY
I've recently been asked a lot of questions about Christianity and sexuality, so I've decided to take the time to get all my thoughts laid out here. As far as I can tell, Christians fall into three main categories on this issue:
Reason #1: Sexuality is beyond our control.
This is difficult to prove, as the factors determining sexuality have not yet been conclusively confirmed. However, the American Psychological Association states:
Reason #2: There is no Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.
This is somewhat more difficult to prove, and a more accurate statement may be "there is no Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as we know it today" (and I've stolen that phrasing from Soulforce). I will only speak briefly on this here and say that when all contextual and cultural factors are taken into account the six or seven verses pertaining to homosexuality mean something quite different to what they initially read.
For more on this see:
Reason #3: Jesus advocated love and acceptance of all people.
This is more straight-forward. I think I will let the Gospel of Matthew do the talking. Matthew 22:36-40 says:
All these things, combined with my own personal, affirming experience of the Holy Spirit, have convinced me that my sexuality and my faith are fully compatible. And, while my stance is a difficult one, I feel it is the only one I can take. My views have made me the target of some accusations, caused a lot of (respectful) arguments, and may cost me a few friendships in the future, but I can always rely on Jesus' love, and that is what keeps me strong.
- Anything other than heterosexuality is 'deviant' and 'unnatural'.
People with this opinion often deny evidence which indicates that our sexuality is determined by biological and hormonal factors, and instead declare that it is purely a matter of choice. As well as perpetuating the myth of 'choice', they often promote the idea that change is possible. I get into a lot of arguments with people who believe this. They like to tell me that I cannot be both a Christian and bisexual. - Hate the sin, love the sinner.
People with this view usually acknowledge that the biological factors determining sexuality and will usually say something like "we are all predisposed to sin; homosexuals need to overcome this inclination to sin just as everyone else does". In short, they hate the perceived sin (which they usually classify as 'homosexual acts') and love the sinner (the LGBT person). I take issue with this view, because it teaches that there is something inherently wrong with LGBT people. In fact, I believe the Catholic catechism on the issue classifies homosexuality as 'intrinsically disordered'. It is damaging to teach people to believe such a thing about themselves. - LGBT affirming.
The "I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way" view. People with this view are accepting and affirming of LGBT people. They acknowledge the rights of LGBT people to identify as Christians and believe that God's love is all encompassing. They do not believe that there is anything sinful about homosexuality or 'homosexual acts'. I, obviously, fall under this category.
Reason #1: Sexuality is beyond our control.
This is difficult to prove, as the factors determining sexuality have not yet been conclusively confirmed. However, the American Psychological Association states:
"most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive, and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."For more on this see:
- Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-science-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/
- American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Reason #2: There is no Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.
This is somewhat more difficult to prove, and a more accurate statement may be "there is no Biblical condemnation of homosexuality as we know it today" (and I've stolen that phrasing from Soulforce). I will only speak briefly on this here and say that when all contextual and cultural factors are taken into account the six or seven verses pertaining to homosexuality mean something quite different to what they initially read.
For more on this see:
- Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/
- Whosoever, http://www.whosoever.org/Issue7/romans.html
- Christian Gays, http://christiangays.com/articles/anita8.shtml#
- Religious Tolerance, http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm
Reason #3: Jesus advocated love and acceptance of all people.
This is more straight-forward. I think I will let the Gospel of Matthew do the talking. Matthew 22:36-40 says:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”For more on this see:
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
- Soulforce, a beautiful and inspiring sermon by Rev. Mel White, http://www.soulforce.org/resources/mel-white-gay-christian-how-can-i-be-sure-god-loves-me/
* * * * *
All these things, combined with my own personal, affirming experience of the Holy Spirit, have convinced me that my sexuality and my faith are fully compatible. And, while my stance is a difficult one, I feel it is the only one I can take. My views have made me the target of some accusations, caused a lot of (respectful) arguments, and may cost me a few friendships in the future, but I can always rely on Jesus' love, and that is what keeps me strong.
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
2. ON THE GENDER CONSTRUCT
I'm in my final year of high school (five days of classes left; yay!) and the New South Wales curriculum has an Extension English course. There are a whole bunch of modules the teacher can choose from in it, and at my school we have studied the module 'Language and Gender'. It is fascinating.
We've looked at a bunch of gender theorists, like Deborah Tannen, Keith and Shuttleworth, Dale Spender and Robin Lackoff, all of whom point out language traits which they categorise as either masculine or feminine. Men's language and women's language. For example, Tannen says that women make requests while men give orders.
What really interested me, though, was a court room study done by O'Barr and Atkins. They found that the language that people used wasn't actually determined by their sex, but instead by their status. So, people with high status, like the judge, used 'masculine' language, even if they were a woman, and people with low status used 'feminine' language. O'Barr and Atkins re-named 'women's language' as 'powerless language'.
The conclusion that can be reached from this is that the differences between men's and women's language aren't determined by sex; they are socially and culturally imposed differences. Surely that's got to get us thinking - what other differences are imposed upon us? Is there actually any difference (other than physical difference) between men and women?
At this point I think a couple of definitions are in order. The most concise and clear definitions I've found are from Literary Terms: A Practical Glossary. It states:
And that brings me to the point of the post; gender is a social construct. The sex we are born does not determine our gender - instead, society teaches us to behave in certain ways which they view as being appropriate for our sex.
I cannot see this as a good thing. It is the worst form of discrimination; people are brought up in a culture of gender inequality, and taught that it is simply because of some inherent or 'natural' difference. People are systematically conditioned to impose this discrimination upon themselves.
I hate the gender construct most of all because it is rampant in my life. I have made my fair share of jokes about men who are effeminate or women being butch, and I conform to a lot of the expectations society has for women. The gender construct affects almost every aspect of society, making it almost impossible to escape.
There is hope though. With the 'boys are good at maths, girls are good at English' myth slowly being destroyed, and transgender people being acknowledged in society I think people are starting to realise that they don't have to conform to the fallacious expectations which have been forced upon them from birth.
The most beautiful and intelligent exploration of the separation between sex and gender may be Virginia Woolf's Orlando. The novel is a mock-biography documenting the life of the character Orlando, whose sex spontaneously changes. The sex change, however, does not change anything about the inner person.
Your biological sex has no power to define you unless you endow it with that power. The more aware we as a society become of our self inflicted limitations, the more able we become to fight what Soulforce's Director of Development, Haven Herrin, termed 'the gendermonster', and to find that (like all our other childhood monsters) it was just a figment of our imaginations.
We've looked at a bunch of gender theorists, like Deborah Tannen, Keith and Shuttleworth, Dale Spender and Robin Lackoff, all of whom point out language traits which they categorise as either masculine or feminine. Men's language and women's language. For example, Tannen says that women make requests while men give orders.
What really interested me, though, was a court room study done by O'Barr and Atkins. They found that the language that people used wasn't actually determined by their sex, but instead by their status. So, people with high status, like the judge, used 'masculine' language, even if they were a woman, and people with low status used 'feminine' language. O'Barr and Atkins re-named 'women's language' as 'powerless language'.
The conclusion that can be reached from this is that the differences between men's and women's language aren't determined by sex; they are socially and culturally imposed differences. Surely that's got to get us thinking - what other differences are imposed upon us? Is there actually any difference (other than physical difference) between men and women?
At this point I think a couple of definitions are in order. The most concise and clear definitions I've found are from Literary Terms: A Practical Glossary. It states:
"in the social sciences, researchers use the terms sex and gender to refer to different kinds of division.
- Sex is used to refer to biological difference, while
- gender is used to refer to social and cultural differences that are built upon sexual difference."
And that brings me to the point of the post; gender is a social construct. The sex we are born does not determine our gender - instead, society teaches us to behave in certain ways which they view as being appropriate for our sex.
I cannot see this as a good thing. It is the worst form of discrimination; people are brought up in a culture of gender inequality, and taught that it is simply because of some inherent or 'natural' difference. People are systematically conditioned to impose this discrimination upon themselves.
I hate the gender construct most of all because it is rampant in my life. I have made my fair share of jokes about men who are effeminate or women being butch, and I conform to a lot of the expectations society has for women. The gender construct affects almost every aspect of society, making it almost impossible to escape.
There is hope though. With the 'boys are good at maths, girls are good at English' myth slowly being destroyed, and transgender people being acknowledged in society I think people are starting to realise that they don't have to conform to the fallacious expectations which have been forced upon them from birth.
* * * * *
The most beautiful and intelligent exploration of the separation between sex and gender may be Virginia Woolf's Orlando. The novel is a mock-biography documenting the life of the character Orlando, whose sex spontaneously changes. The sex change, however, does not change anything about the inner person.
"Orlando had become a woman - there is no denying it. But in every other respect, Orlando remained precisely as he had been. The change of sex, though it altered their future, did nothing whatever to alter their identity."
Your biological sex has no power to define you unless you endow it with that power. The more aware we as a society become of our self inflicted limitations, the more able we become to fight what Soulforce's Director of Development, Haven Herrin, termed 'the gendermonster', and to find that (like all our other childhood monsters) it was just a figment of our imaginations.
Friday, 9 September 2011
1. ON THE BLOGGER
It seems a natural place to start for a few reasons:
A 'something worth writing' will probably be my opinion on an issue which falls under one or more of the following categories:
If anyone actually reads this blog; questions and comments are very welcome - now and always.
- A blog is, by nature, solipsistic and egocentric, so of course I will start with myself.
- When I try to add to the 'About Me' I am met with an error, so I'll put it here for now, probably in greater detail than I would have otherwise.
A 'something worth writing' will probably be my opinion on an issue which falls under one or more of the following categories:
- literature
- gender
- sexuality
- Christianity
- philosophy
- politics
If anyone actually reads this blog; questions and comments are very welcome - now and always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)