[global morality gap]

A global morality gap.

I'd never heard of the term until I read a recent article in the Spectator. It suggests that there is a significant gap in morality between two parts of our world, and that this distinction may be as or more important than other distinctions (such as First World / Third World, developed / developing, etc.) that are more commonly talked about.

This gap is between the part of the world that has been enlightened, that believes in human rights and all that we can be, and the part that maintains strict moral codes, where men are not equal to men and women are definitely less, where might is right and non-heterosexual is wrong. The part of the world where police are not your friends, where citizens are ten to one hundred times more likely to be murdered than citizens of Europe, and other nightmares are commonplace.

The author suggests that the gap is only going to get wider. Whether that is true, I don't know. On one hand, many countries in Africa are currently enacting extreme laws especially in regard to gay people. On the other hand, Nigerian author Binyavanga Wainaina, who came out recently, is hopeful that though there will be a difficult time ahead, lgbt rights "have traction". And while the western world is very keen on human rights, there are extreme elements within it which would be happy to see many of those rights removed and a more fundamentalist control re-established.

Read the whole article and give it some thought.

Update: In late January 2014, thousands of French citizens marched in the streets of Paris yelling, "Jews get out of France" while giving Nazi salutes. (source). Around the same time, there were also extensive anti-gay protests related to the government legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the gap is not as clear-cut as some think...

western decadence

Of course, it's not that simple, is it. The context of the cartoon, if you are not familiar with it, is the objection to "western decadence" that the Russian government has and which it is reacting against with its anti-gay laws.

While we might think of decadence as rich desserts or luxury handbags, Google defines decadence as "moral or cultural decline as characterized by excessive indulgence in pleasure or luxury." Moral decline is the operative part of this definition, and that is what is being objected to.

(The other context, for those who don't live in Canada or near shops selling President's Choice products, is that the President's Choice brand has an entire line of "Decadent" products, such as the Decadent Chocolate Chip cookies Obama is eating above).

two for one deal

As the Olympics approach and the torch is being carried across the country on the way to Sochi, Vladimir Putin is getting desperate...

[we are all insiders]

From an advertising perspective, I like the MEC's "We are all outsiders" ad campaign. It's kinda catchy in the way it twists the idea of "outsider" to mean someone who likes being outdoors.

MEC is playing on the reality that many in our world are really on the outside, on the margins. Are they hoping that giving being an outsider a positive spin will get them more sales? Or have they not thought beyond the double entendre?

The kingdom of God gives another spin to it all: everyone is an insider. Everyone is loved by God, Jesus spends a lot of time hanging out with outsiders, and the first shall be last.

doublespeak

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs, "servicing the target" for bombing [1]), in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war "peace"). In such cases, doublespeak disguises the nature of the truth. Doublespeak is most closely associated with political language.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak)

Here's some words of the pulpit that can be doublespeak:

Speaking about gay marriage, a well-known pastor recently said, “Don’t take a term and and make it something different. Orwell talked about doublespeak, where words mean the exact opposite of what they used to mean.”

He seems to be suggesting that the way gay people use the word "marriage" is the exact opposite of what marriage "really means" or used to mean. This handy chart shows that there are very few differences between the two, making me wonder who is really the one "doublespeaking":

comparison	traditional marriage	gay marriage
two people	yes	yes
life-long commitment	yes	yes
mutual relationship	yes	yes
love	yes	yes
one man and one woman	yes	no
traditionally based on ownership	yes	no

i'd rather be skiing

p.s. On February 20, 2014, about a month after this was posted, this cartoon was the #4 result on Google Images if you searched for "I'd rather be skiing".

Imagine that! The rest of the results were mostly shirts and buttons and such which said "I'd rather be skiing".

equality for all

If you haven't been keeping up with all the news, here are some disturbing items from the past few weeks:

India:
In 1861, the British instated a law that made non-heterosexual sex illegal.
In 2009, a lower court determined that this law was unconstitutional and overturned it.
In December 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the 2009 judgement, saying that "only Parliament can change that law" and thus recriminalizing homosexuality. The fine for gay sex is once again 10 years in prison.

Uganda:
An anti-homosexuality bill was proposed which would make homosexuality a capital offense. There was much support for this bill both from Ugandan Christians and from evangelicals in the west. Due to protests, the death penalty has been removed from the bill, and it was passed with life imprisonment for "repeat offenders."

Russia:
Along with legislation prohibiting "gay propaganda", there has been an increase in anti-gay violence. And then there's people like Ivan Okhlobystin, a popular actor who is also an Orthodox priest, who was applauded for recently saying (during a "Spiritual Talks" tour), "I myself would shove all live gays into furnaces. This is Sodom and Gomorrah, I as a believer in God can not treat this indifferently, this is a live threat to my kids!... I do not want my kids to think that faggots are normal. This is lavender fascism. If a person can not choose someone of an opposite sex for procreation - this is a overt sign of mental abnormality, so they should be denied of voting rights."

Ethiopia:
Seyoum Antonius, president of United for Life, a "western Evangelical Christian organization that receives funding from the west", "has made clear that he won't quit anti-gay advocacy until Ethiopia adopts the death penalty. One of his rallying cries is, 'Africa will become a graveyard for homosexuality!'" (source). The irony of such statements from an organization of such a name does not seem apparent to everyone. This is one small example of what is happening in Ethiopia (read the whole Newsweek article).

United States of America:
While things are getting better, there is still much legalized discrimination and injustice against sexual minorities in the U.S. For example, there are still 29 states in which a person can be fired from their job simply for being gay (source). This is slowly changing for the better, but there are still citizens who would be happy to see the laws become harsher as they are in other parts of the world.


Increasingly, Christians in North America are speaking out against such discrimination and injustice. We are tired of the dominant view of Christians being those who are bigoted and hateful. We are speaking up to say, being silent isn't good enough. We're raising our voices to say that standing by while lgbt people are put down is not good enough. We are proclaiming the good news that God loves everyone and his arms are open wide to all.

conflicted, or just double-thinking?

In a recent interview, a prominent evangelical pastor said the words in the first two panes. The words in the third pane logically followed for me, as his statements imply them.

But I then wondered what it must be like to believe in something and to also believe in someone who does not believe that same something. What options does this pastor have?

1. Give up his belief in equality and stick to his God.
2. Hold to his belief in equality and give up his God.
3. Live a conflicted life of struggle and cognitive dissonance due to believing two contradictory things.
4. Believe both parts simultaneously -- in other words, believe that you truly believe in equality, and believe in God. This is typically easier when a person is not verbalizing the fact that their God does not believe the same thing as they do.

I suspect that #4 happens quite commonly, that people believe they are good even while doing bad things, believe they are pro-life even while advocating the death penalty for murderers and lgbt people, believe they are tolerant even while they tolerate others only on their own terms, believe they are embracing of all even while they are excluding of some. And they do this without feeling any conflict about it.

Kinda like being against sweatshops, yet buying more cheap clothes produced in them. Or buying chocolate that's not fair trade, while objecting to child labour and human trafficking. Those are examples from my life. Perhaps you can think of your own examples....

Believing both parts simultaneously ties in with the term "doublethink", coined by George Orwell in 1949 and appearing in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four: 

"Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction."

 (from Wikipedia, emphasis added)

So what about that God I believe in who believes things I don't believe in? Is it time to reconsider whether God really does believe those things, or whether I am believing limited human interpretations that have become "gospel truth"?

the four arms of god

The four arms of God — two embracing the world, and two open to those whom we exclude when we say "for God so loved the world"....

more important things

This is how some people feel. They've listened to the listening committees, they've written to their member of parliament, they might have even protested outside some office or against a parade. But now, they would like to move on to other things, and someone like me drawing cartoons about the same topic again and again can be irritating.

I don't think I'll be stopping anytime soon.

For starters, if there are some people who are treated as less than other people, all of us are less. Desmond Tutu said: "If I diminish you, I diminish myself", and in a similar way, if others are diminished, we are all diminished. It is not enough for women to be liberated if some women are oppressed for being black. It is not enough for black women to be liberated if some black women are oppressed for being lesbian. It is not enough for black lesbian women to be liberated if some are being oppressed for being Jewish. And so on.

So I draw cartoons in a desire to increase embrace and decrease exclusion, so that all people would be welcome and embraced, and so that we will all be more aware and thinking about what we think, feel and do.

Is this the most important issue of today? I don't know. What I do know, is that matters of sexual orientation are ubiquitous. Whether it's bullying of gay students at school here in Canada or employees being fired solely due to their non-heterosexual sexual orientation being discovered in the U.S., to the greater extremes of countries around the world having or enacting laws which imprison or execute lgbt people, this is one of the key justice issues today. And because of a long legacy of Christian churches rejecting those in sexual minorities, this is a key spiritual issue. If we believe God loves everyone, why is it not more obvious??

Finally, I do comment on many other things on this blog -- check out the Categories section on the side and you'll see that the posts range from aboriginal to hell to mental illness to sex trade workers. But just as a political commentary blog deals with current political events and happenings, this is a social commentary blog and many of the happenings right now, happen to be lgbt. Thus, there is "a lot of fodder for the cannon." Not that I'm shooting at people -- it's just a metaphor, one that stems from the violence within me and within us all, the violence that Jesus came to undo and overcome and dissolve by giving his life non-violently for us all. See, I even managed to get a gospel message in this post.


rob g

p.s. Please use the comments feature to respond to this altar call.

relics

museum, hospital, or ? [pt. 2]

The church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners.

In the first part, I expressed my dislike of both the museum of saints and the hospital for sinners analogies.

so what are some alternatives?

The other "place-oriented" alternatives that come to mind are personal ones. This means that they might work for me, but you may have a very different experience of the same kind of place and thus, it may mean nothing to you or in fact have negative connotations.

These often depend on a personal experience that might mean the world to the person who experienced it, and very little to others, as it is especially hard to capture and describe those magical things that make the experience what it is.

Consider a night with friends at the pub. Some only associate this with excessive drinking. Others think of hanging out with friends to watch the game. For me, it meant spending time with others in a context of acceptance, honesty and trust, regardless of what we talked about.

Many churches have small groups, and these can be amazing for some, boring for others, and downright toxic for a few. The same could be said for most other place-oriented analogies. So what else is there?

museum, hospital, or ? [pt. 1]

The church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners.

The church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners.

After hearing this saying in a recent sermon, I realized I don't like "hospital for sinners" anymore than I like "museum for saints".

But first, here's what the point of this saying seems to be: Rather than the church being for those who are perfect and do not need to change anymore, the church is for those who need God and His healing.

As Fr. Peter Daly said, "A broken world needs a place to bring its spiritual injuries. We need an emergency room more than a courtroom. We want healing more than judgment."

More on this perspective from the National Catholic Reporter.

I get that. That makes sense. So what's there not to like?

For starters, I don't like hospitals.

In fact, I don't think most people like hospitals.

And I'm not sure if people who are not part of a church culture think of themselves as sinners. (Do those who are in a church culture think of themselves as sinners? Or are sinners "the people out there?")

But more than that, while all analogies break down at some point, this one breaks down very quickly. Here's a little destruction for your day:

A hospital is run by professionals.
Professionals are not sick like you.
Professionals know what's best for you.
They prescribe medications and treatments.
They focus on the problem, not the person.
They usually don't care about the rest of your life.
There is no personal relationship between you and them.
The other patients are simply that, other patients.
There is little or no relationship between you and the other patients, unless you are in long-term care.
Once you are better, you leave, hoping not to have to come back.

And then there are bigger words, like power and privilege.

Hospitals are built on them.
And therefore, hospitals are othering.

No thanks.

---

[part 2]

[republic of outsiders, by alissa quart]

"Republic of Outsiders is about the growing number of Americans who disrupt the status quo: outsiders who seek to redefine a wide variety of fields, from film and mental health to diplomacy and music, from how we see gender to what we eat. They include professional and amateur filmmakers crowd-sourcing their work, transgender and autistic activists, and Occupy Wall Street’s “alternative bankers.” These people create and package new identities in a practice cultural critic Alissa Quart dubs “identity innovation”: they push the boundaries of who they can be and what they can do, even turning the forces of co-optation to their benefit.

In a brilliant and far-reaching account, Quart introduces us to individuals who have created new structures to keep themselves sane, fulfilled, and, on occasion, paid. This deeply reported book shows how and why these groups now gather, organize, and create new communities and economies. Without a middleman, freed of established media, and highly mobile, unusual ideas and cultures are able to spread more quickly and find audiences and allies. Republic of Outsiders is a critical examination of those for whom being rebellious, marginal, or amateur is a source of strength rather than weakness."  (source)

I learned a lot from this book. Not life-changing stuff, but about the people who live in this world, some of whom have ideas that have never crossed my mind and who make choices for their lives that I didn't know people were making. I also learned new terms which are not yet in common usage. Take, for example, "counterpublics:"

[Michael] Warner's term can be used to describe both the neurodiverse and many of the other renegades in this book who frequently turn to writing as a tool for expression and resistance. He sees these groups as creating their own fictions to counter the supreme fiction of the majority group, which is never the true monolith so may imagine it to be. According to his theory, what we usually call the public sphere is based on exclusion, and excluded groups are assigned lesser status. "Counterpublics" attempt to correct this, Warner says. The notion of a "public" is a social fiction, the "normal," and it becomes the frame for our lives. Counterpublics, such as the Mad Priders and all the others in this book, carve out separate spaces through writing in particular, through a strong message that people in the broader public may not have heard before and that could potentially change and shape minds.

(p. 21)

While it was an interesting read, I probably won't read it again -- so I'm glad I got it from the public library.

[if people can learn to hate...]