Pulling up the rocks

Earlier today, at the suggestion of my four year old's kindergarten teacher, I took my daughter for a language screening at an early years centre. Braving the sleet and the snow and the slush and the wind in the streets, I rolled into a parking spot thinking firstly, I hope they made it, and secondly, if they did make it maybe no one else will be here and this won't take long. Hey I can dream, right? I was lucky to get in near the end of the line, at least a dozen dishevelled parents after me were turned down. But I'm happy to report after a long morning that my daughter and probably her younger brother will not need speech therapy. Woo hoo! That was music to my ears after just finishing 3-4 years of speech therapy with her older sisters.

But while we were waiting in a room full of preschoolers with one little table with one sought-after toy to the side of the room, what can I say, I had lots of time and no time at all, all at the same time, while everything became a toy. So, while trying to keep the stairs, the elevator buttons, the coffee machine, and everything in between from the groping little fingers of my little kids, I had occasion to notice pamphlets and condoms and rainbows and HPV pamphlets and rooms for at-risk youth and bulletins for hormonal suppression information night. Just about everywhere I looked it seemed, there was something to give me pause for thought.

And this is where it gets tricky, of course, because I understand that in secular minds and secular spaces, hey they're just thinking about health, most of the time with public health issues, I get that. But you know what I don't get, is why can't you just say to kids in a pamphlet, you know, it's a really good idea not to sleep around, but they never seem to say that, do they? And yet it's not inconsistent with the research that we have, is it, that this is a health and safety issue, much like drinking and driving. We seem to expect more from young people in other ways when it causes harm, and we let them know that choices have consequences, right? And separately, as much as I agree that it is a rights issue, that people who are gay should be treated as equal human beings, I'm not quite so convinced that it's as simple of an issue as everyone seems to want me to accept without question.

So interestingly, when I came home and turned on a lecture that I had stumbled across the previous evening, that challenged a lot of mainstream assumptions about homosexuality being genetic, unchanging, etc., and I was reminded of a fairly recent major study that suggested the same thing, that it's not genetic, or that genetics may play a fairly minor role...but I haven't heard much about that study in the mainstream media. Funny that. And I know as a pro-lifer that abortion affects women, but I never hear that admitted either, and I never hear it admitted that there is much scientific evidence that is consistent with an intelligence being behind creation. I never hear so much as a word in that direction. It's taboo, isn't it, to step outside our secular culture's assumptions and orthodoxies, and to think we thought we got rid of taboos at Woodstock.

But it reminded me of something I heard a caller on a morning radio show say some time back, that has stayed with me, because I think it sums up what the dominant culture thinks of social and theological conservatives like myself, that we avoid the evidence, in favour of our personal beliefs. He was much more pointed and well, a lot more rude in how he said it...but I was looking at that pamphlet and the lack of condoms available for the potential consequences of oral sex and the decisions that obviously very young people are making that could affect their health. Do we really know how hormone suppression therapies will affect young people down the road? Do we? 

I'm not trying to have the last word here, and I'm not trying to make definitive statements. I don't know enough to make definitive statements on much of anything here. I'm just asking questions and reflecting, while I'm thinking about a memory that I have of when I was a little girl. I was much afraid of creepy crawly things as a kid, but I remember that feeling. Do you remember that feeling, the excitement and nervousness of lifting up rocks, while knowing that there might be something wiggly and fascinating underneath? How often there was something wiggly and fascinating underneath.

I think the secular world is right sometimes, when it says that religious people are sometimes guilty of having a God that is too small, but I don't think we're alone. People pick through and file things according to their own beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs and presuppositions are, whether secular or religious, and they take what they take, and leave the uncomfortable.

With that said, I remember being out one night, and listening to a Christian speaker and he said something interesting. He said, if we lift up a rock as Christians and look underneath and something that's greater than God crawls out, then we really should worship that thing, shouldn't we? I can say that because I know as a Christian that we serve a very big God, and so I don't have to be afraid of what lies underneath. What do we have to fear, when our God is not the sun god or the moon dog, but the God of before the big bang, the author of all things. May I humbly suggest as a thoughtful Christian, that we overturn every rock for all to see, and maybe the secular world can join us, and we can have a really interesting discussion.

Thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey



Some related links:

http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v28n01_08#.UqdPlMRDvDs

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/09/uk-transgender-youth-denied-hormone-treatment-to-prevent-puberty/#.UqdfZMRDvDs

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Condoms-not-effective-against-HPV-or-herpes-3650285.php

http://www.publiceye.org/ark/reproductive-justice/articles/condoms-do-not-prevent-hpv.php

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/hpv-transmission-during-oral-sex-a-growing-cause-of-mouth-and-throat-cancer-201306046346

http://std.about.com/od/hpv/a/hpvoralcancer.htm

Beginnings

I've learned that it's a good idea to sit on these posts for a little while after I write them, and so that's what I've done here. I wrote this a couple of weeks ago. I was listening to a bioethics lecture and I was so stirred by what he was saying that I had to stop it and sit down and write this. I haven't even finished listening to the lecture (haha), which is unusual for me. I try to go through things thoroughly before I put them up, but that day, I felt I'd heard all I needed to hear, or all I could bear to hear. I don't expect that people are going to believe what I've written here, I really don't. Not that it's a big deal (it never was to me), but I recognize now as an adult that it may seem strange. So, if you read this and think "Marg, you're full of it," that's fine, just keep in mind that I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm writing it for the person who's out there, who may want to take a look at it. In short, I'm recording it for anyone who may be interested, for research purposes or otherwise. Since writing this, I've struggled as well, with the obvious personal implications...(sigh). I'm sorry, but it's something I felt I needed to do, in light that we live in a culture where ethical lines are becoming more and more blurred. I think we don't realize how much our culture has been shaped by our spiritual foundations, and as those foundations are lost, we are seeing a regress to what went before, little girls abandoned, the disabled killed, as it is in many parts of the world to this day. It is out of concern for the least of these that I write this. Thanks. 

Well, maybe it's time (sigh). I was listening to this lecture earlier today and I had to stop it and unplug my laptop and sit down and begin to write. Seeing as how they were talking about such things as life and death, and who should have the right to live and who should not, and they were asking questions that perhaps I can help with, so maybe it's time I did. Yeah, I know I'm just an obscure Canadian blogger, and I don't really expect anyone to believe me anyway, even my friends (haha). Just the opposite, I would expect people to accuse me of having an agenda which I do, being pro-life, so I'll just get that out of the way. I have an agenda, I am pro-life, but that doesn't necessarily make my experience untrue. For the record, I'm a moderate pro-lifer, and am more interested in creating a pro-life culture and appealing to the conscience of the individual than necessarily enforcing laws, at least in the early stages of pregnancy. But here's that lecture, on bioethics, that brought to the fore of my mind what has been in the back of my mind for a very long time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qot0zsqqoJ8

Even though I've considered myself pro-life for as long as I've been aware of the issue, I never really connected my earliest memories with my personal views. It's just maturity I guess, that in recent years I have begun to do so. When you begin to make connections in your mind, your experiences with things you hear, things you put together. I guess it happens that with time we would amalgamate our thoughts as we make sense of the world. But let me say again, I don't expect anyone to believe me here, I really don't. What I would hope is that, in the same way that there has been documentation of near death experiences, that there could be more study of early life experiences, and that subsequently such stories could collectively gain a respectability or add to our understanding, gradually with time. It's a charged issue with charged questions. Do people really want to know if children in utero feel pain? For anyone who's looking though, here's my story for that collection.

Where do you start, the end or the beginning? I've always had a very troubled relationship with my mother, whom I've been estranged from for years, since the birth of my own children, whom I felt the need to protect. Whenever I think, gosh, could I be wrong about my earliest memories, I think to myself, nope, don't think so, because they are perfectly consistent with the whole of the rest of my life experience. So, here goes nothing, but this is what I remember.

My earliest memories are of being in the womb. How on earth do I remember that? Why would I remember that? Nobody else seems to, or very few people. My personal theory on that is that I remember because the trauma of it somehow burned the memories into my mind. Honestly, I'm almost forty years old, and I don't know anymore if I'm really back there or not, or if I'm recalling a memory of a memory of a memory, if you follow my meaning. I believe I would have said otherwise, that I was back there, even throughout much of my twenties. But the experience of having my children, both the busyness and the sleeplessness as well as the maturation that goes with getting older and the passage of time have all been taxing on my memory, both short term and long term. I'm just not sure anymore, if I'm really back there or not. Some days I think I am, some days I'm not sure, but regardless, I began writing my early memories down when I was in my early twenties, and it's always remained the same in my mind. Here's the gist of what I remember.

I remember pink, a deep shade of pink, everywhere pink with thick pink claustrophobic walls. Did I mention pink? Did I mention boredom? I also remember being bored, very very bored, where time seemed to stand still, pardon the cliche, but waiting, and still more waiting. I remember voices, movement, doing nothing for what seemed like forever. She was walking now, and then stopped suddenly and was talking to someone. I remember listening intently, trying to understand the words but I couldn't hear the words clearly or I couldn't understand the words, not sure which it was, maybe a bit of both. One of the voices was my mother's voice, that I knew for sure, she was talking to somebody, and then it was over and the voices stopped. The other person left. She was moving again, doing something, but now without talking. More than anything else I remember the weight of my mother's emotions that surrounded me, pressed in on me, weighed on my being, my person, while I struggled inwardly to not be consumed. It was suffocating, the tension that I felt. I just wanted it to stop, the stress of her emotions and the overwhelming feeling that I had in response, of just wanting to be away from it. I tried to move, tried to stretch my limbs, tried to move my neck, my head, but there was nowhere to go. I couldn't move, while I waited, and waited...

and then I remember jolts, powerful jolts and eventually movement and a passageway followed by bright white institutional lighting, a hospital room. I've heard people say that newborns cannot see farther than their mother's face. I don't remember my mother's face or being held (or maybe I don't want to), but I remember the back of the doctor's head and white lab coat that I could see across the room, possibly six to eight feet away. He was cleaning instruments, there was a sense of accomplishment of something being done, finished or complete in the room. It was over. The lights were strong, bright, blaring white, the room was institutional but I didn't feel cold. The emotion that I felt more than anything was relief, that I was finally separated from her, physically separated from her at least, from the pressure that had weighed in on me so heavily. I was relieved, so relieved, and I remember thinking for a long time after that, that at least I was separated and couldn't feel her emotions anymore (sigh).

So, what do I think when I hear people discussing, whether a late term infant in utero or newly born, asking if they are self-aware, knowing that this is the question that in some people's minds, should determine whether they have a right to life (sigh)? I was the same person then that I am now. I'm not calculating this, it's the first thing that came to my mind when I asked myself that question. I was the same person that I am now. The emotions that I felt then are the emotions I still feel when I think of my mother today. Thank God I am out of that relationship, thank God I am on with my life. I'm sorry, normally I try to respect the privacy of others in my writing, unfortunately here I cannot, as our histories are so intertwined. But it's ironic isn't it, the whole abortion issue, how we try to separate something that cannot be separated, the most basic relationship of all, that of a mother and child, something that is, to something that isn't, something that cannot be, we tell ourselves, is how it is. Someone who is, to something that isn't: and my broken memories of a non-existent relationship that offer answers to questions, that many would prefer to ignore, even in light of new beginnings.


Thanks for listening, take care,

Margaret Harvey

Why I am a Christian

It's been one of those days, and it's only 10:30am. I always think that I'm the only one on those days, everyone else has it together, but not me. I don't have it together. Anyway, there's been a number of people over the years who have famously written about why they are or why they are not a Christian. I've had it in my heart for a while now to get in on that. So here goes...

When I was growing up I got the message that if I got it right, I was good, and if I got it wrong, I was bad. Everything seemed to be about performance in one way or another. Home was like that, school was like that, church was like that, and I could never seem to get it right. I was that kid that people were always telling to hurry up. Hurry up! What are you waiting for, Christmas! And as time passed and things happened, I found myself on my own a lot, emotionally though not physically abandoned. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, that's not why I do this, but it became about staying out of the way, and trying to avoid conflict at all cost. I learned how to disappear. I became hyper-vigilant, always trying to think ahead, what I was supposed to do, say, to avoid being yelled at, to avoid being told again and again what I had always heard, "you're no good, you ruined my life!" I tried to avoid hearing, which is why I clicked out so much of the time, which is why they were always telling me to pay attention. Pay attention! I didn't want to hear what I was trying so hard not to believe.

But you know the funny thing, is that I hear people say stuff like, oh this religion thing, it's all indoctrination. People just tell this stuff to kids all their lives so they begin to believe it. I don't think so. I seem to be blessed (for whatever reason) with an ability to remember pretty far back and my memory tells me that that intuition, that there is something more in all this, was always there. And I believe that studies confirm that as well, and that has been my experience with my own and others' children, that a spiritual intuition, if you will, is something that's innate. What I have heard scientists say is that they've found (and I'm paraphrasing) that this is something that doesn't take a lot of convincing with children.Yip, I'll second that.

Because I remember being a very young kid, and my family was somewhere between nominal and cultural Catholic, and I didn't get much "God talk" at home if at all. We went to church or we didn't go to church depending on the mood, but I remember being very very young, and sensing a presence (that nobody told me about) surrounding me. It was always there. It never left. And I remember sensing at one point that there was a circle drawn around me, that no matter what happened, nothing could penetrate that line. And I remember saying to my mother at around 3 years of age, "God named me."  She looked confused and said, no, "we named you," but I always had this sense. And then there were the things I can't explain.

Now some people would scoff at all that and say bah, everyone says that, and they would cite examples from other religions and cultures, etc., and maybe that's the point, they would. If miracles are a dime a dozen, maybe we should start documenting them. I only have it from one source, but I remember Gary Habermas saying that we think of other ancient sources (that the secular world would have more respect for), as not having examples of the supernatural, but yet "they do."  That this is everywhere, and that it happens, quite simply. What I'm saying is, is that in much the same way that near death experiences have gained more of an acceptability through documentation and study, perhaps we should begin to document people's experiences of the supernatural, before we dismiss all such claims outright.

I remember one night I was out for dinner with some friends, both secular and Christian. One of my secular friends starting going on about the virtues of secularism and how we shouldn't believe in such (supernatural) things on principle, basically. One of my Christian friends started to talk and then gave up. He told me later though, as someone who had training in psychology and counselling, that in terms of human experience, in terms of the whole person, and the emotional and spiritual health of the individual, God does exist. And that's the part that I see so neglected in secular discourse. What about the spirituality of the whole person, the emotional and spiritual health and experiences of the individual?

So, what about that little girl, abused, neglected, and the only person I felt was there for me, so often in my early life, was the thing that I can't prove. Does my experience count? Does the experience and intuition of billions of people count? Now you might say that atheists and secularists are entitled to their experience too, and yes they are, but they are in the minority. Globally, atheists are a very slim minority, while they continue to talk about abstract concepts themselves, often incessantly. The other thing that could be argued is that there are different religions and belief systems that contradict my own. Yes, there are, but on a very basic human level, that spiritual intuition appears to be present, definitively as something, if not "the thing" that separates us from the animals.

So, all that is a lot more long-winded than I intended to be. What I had intended to do, much more simply was to speak from my own experience. I respect other people's right to their experience too. I've become a lot more relaxed as an evangelical Christian over the years. At the end of the day, where people are at is between themselves and God, or nobody if I'm wrong. It is possible I could be wrong. I'm a human being and human beings are sometimes wrong. But my experience as a human being tells me that there is something more in this, and I see no reason why it isn't quite possible that in the presence of an awesome creation, that there could be a mind behind it. There's nothing irrational about that. It has a lot of explanatory power.

But why would I choose Christianity, over other options that I'm aware of? Well, because despite my early life that told me that I would never amount to anything, there was a presence there that told me different, a presence who knew me by name. How would I explain that it seems to me that Judeo-Christian theology places the most emphasis on the value of the human person as an individual, having an eternal worth and dignity, that it's about relationship? That God would call us by name, that God would give us a new name, that God would call us His friends, how amazing! Maybe I'll get into that more in another blog, but despite the legalism and fundamentalism of my Protestantism and the dogmatism and ritualism of my Catholicism, when I was in my early 20's I began to work with the mentally disabled. Someone pointed me to the Beatitudes, "blessed are the poor in spirit." I'd never heard that preached on before, nobody had ever mentioned grace, but in the brokenness of the mentally disabled, people that society had cast aside I saw myself. And for the first time in my life I saw the Gospel lived out, when I experienced unconditional acceptance, in the love of a community of people who saw me for who I was as a person.

But then I have mornings like today, when I forget, when I lose perspective, where I try to avoid asking myself, am I a crappy parent? Where I make mistakes, when I'm frustrated. And as much as I try to get it together, and I never do, it's days like today that remind me of why I'm a Christian, because I know that I can't do it on my own, and then I remember that Christianity alone offers salvation outright. Rather than saying, do this or don't do that (only to hope) to one day get it or make it, which is what I'd heard all my life. It's in humility that I can accept that gift, because I know that I need grace. I need forgiveness. I live in a suburb, I drive a minivan that I just heard, "may or may not pass it's next e-test." I have 5 kids which is 3 more than I'm supposed to have, apparently. I throw poopy diapers in the garbage when my kids are sick and I can't seem to remember to bring a bleeping bag to the big box store while I'm saving the world. I need forgiveness, as much as I was one of the first kids in my high school to sign up for a "green" club and attend regularly and sit down and take notes. I seem to have a very hard time living up to my youthful ideals while I'm taking out twice as much consumer garbage and watching twice as much dirty water go down the drain as my neighbours. I need grace, because I can't do it, and I'm not saying this as an excuse to do nothing, because I do care and I do try to make a difference, but that's why I have so much gratitude for a gracious God who reached out to me when I was alone, and loved me, just as I am, while the world and every glossy magazine cover constantly tells me that I will never be enough.


Thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey



Lecture: Gary Habermas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znVUFHqO4Q

You needed me

I have a sarcastic sense of humour sometimes, so you may find yourself either laughing or rolling your eyes at this one, depending on whether you share my twisted sense of humour. I don't have strong opinions on most things, at least I don't think I do, but in some ways I'm probably conservative-leaning. Okay, I've said it. I value hard work and I don't like waste, especially of someone's hard earned money, especially if that someone is me. So, I'm probably someone, who if I lived in Toronto, might be one of Rob Ford's supporters. I live in a suburb, I have kids, I drive a Dodge minivan, and like most Canadian families, we're getting by but we don't take money for granted. So, when a politician comes along that seems to share the same values, what can I say, I might just vote for him or her. I might appreciate their concern for the little guy.

So, without having followed Rob Ford all that closely, I've been leaning toward the view for some time that much of what has been written about him is overblown, that some people just don't care for him and want him out of there. Mind you, if it turns out that there are more serious allegations to come, I would think that he would lose much of his support. I would expect that involvement in organized crime would be a game-changer for most people, though to date the only evidence is a recorded one-time use of crack cocaine (or ties to questionable company). Not that even a one-time use of crack cocaine is laudable, of course. 

But you know, for me the interesting thing with the Rob Ford crack scandal, is to hear people whom I would assume are left-leaning, express their moral outrage with candid vigour. I was on my way to work the other evening and I heard the tail end of a CBC program and one of the commenters said something to the effect that if this is what conservatism has been reduced to, balanced books, then there's something wrong. I kid you not, she said that on national radio. I'm paraphrasing, but in essence what she said appeared to be demanding that conservatives become more socially engaged. It warmed my heart it did, and I was encouraged. As a social conservative who has often known discouragement, who has sometimes thought: "I've compromised all I can without selling my soul outright." It gave me hope, when I was at the end. It turned my lies into truth again, in short, it was just what I needed to hear, someone seeing a value in my social conservatism. But of course I can't say it better than Anne Murray can sing it, especially the part about being almost able to see eternity. Oh, you'll have to listen to the song, but thank you, someone on the CBC, and thank you CBC for being there, our hard earned tax dollars at work, standing up for and uniting Canadians from left to right. I can't thank you enough (sniff).

But honestly, I am so accustomed at this point to feeling like the world has no use for me. I'm one of those dang social conservative evangelical Christians that everyone wishes would just go away. I read something very similar to that recently about pro-lifers." Can't these people just go away!"  Is that what they really want? For every voice that says that there is something unquantifiable about human life, to just go away?  Is that what they want?

It reminded me of a lecture I listened to a while back where the professor was commenting (again I'm paraphrasing) that the left doesn't really want the right to just go away. They want the right to say all the things that they're too afraid to say themselves. He went on to tell the story of an acquaintance who would occasionally respond at a dinner party, when someone would make a comment about those sexually repressed conservatives, that we should indeed indulge every facet of potential sexual possibilities, encourage every repressed urge, in thought and deed. Why not? Why not, because nobody really wants their daughter getting pregnant at 15 or swinging half-naked on a pole for any stranger off the street to use, do they? Nobody really wants that, and as much as I hear the left defending drug abuse as a health issue, something that should not be a criminal offense, nobody really wants a crack smoking mayor as a consequence, do they?  It's refreshing to realize that we're all in this together, liberals and conservatives. None of us want our kids tripping over needles at the park, no one wants to lose the cherished value of human life or human liberty or human dignity, and that's something that's good to remember. As for us social conservatives, trudging along, used to being kicked around and misrepresented, used to being unappreciated, for once it's just nice to be needed. Thanks again, it made a difference.

Blessings to you and yours,

M.A. Harvey

Here's Anne Murray:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6nfpxZ2Nz4

Wasteland

This would be the first poem that I've written in a very long time. Maybe it'll become a song in time, but for now I'm satisfied with the words as they appear here. I wrote this around the time that civilians were being killed in Egypt and Syria. I was so disturbed by the images of "sleeping children" and stories of civilians being killed of all backgrounds, yet also disturbed by a culture here at home where I don't feel I have the freedom to ask honest questions anymore. Thoughts of the persecuted church also loomed in my mind and thoughts of "how good we have it" in the west as Christians, and yet the reality of an increasingly polarized society here as well and an apparent inability to dialogue, even as there remains an assumption of equality. I stayed up a bit too late while at work and being a mess of emotions I tried to go to sleep and waking again in that half-awake, half-asleep state I dreamed I saw a wasteland and got up and wrote this down, largely as it is here.


Wasteland

Why do I do this to myself? 
I should have gone to bed
not stayed up to watch the headlines
glaring from the dead

Someone's no tomorrow
yet everything I see reminds me
they won't talk to me
insistent tunnel needs

betray your faith for unforgiveness 
anti gun anti something anti gay anti conscience I screamed!
noone knows the troubles I see that don't compare to burning churches burning crosses burning
bullet in her 10 year old chest

don't compare to burning bodies burning bridges burning crosses burning 
sacrifice for our beloved Egypt 
established 50 A.D.
since 50 A.D

Don't compare to your good fortune not so bad it's not so bad just go to sleep
don't retaliate don't think-
it's not so bad it's not so bad it's not so -why do I see a wasteland
between waking and sleep?
Why do I see a wasteland 
with aching blackness beneath?

Empty visions empty prophets empty promise when you disagree
put the poison in the bottle and take it to your sleep and dream of wastelands
wastelands, violence beneath
dream of wastelands wastelands silence at your feet
and dream of wastelands wastelands
falling beneath
wastelands

with new visions of equality
be still the empty voice of
suicide correctness
don't you tell us how it really is
while hurtle stones falling falling beneath 

not so bad it's not so bad 
just go to sleep
it's not so bad it's not so bad
while I'm falling asleep

why do I dream of wastelands wastelands 
with blackness beneath
why do I dream of wastelands wastelands 
between waking and sleep?
Why do I see a wasteland
with silence beneath 
wastelands


thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey


Image:

The last time I saw Richard

I picked a nice picture of him, don't you think? I actually did come across a picture of a very morose- looking Richard Dawkins sitting in a cafe but I thought no, better not, I try to keep things above the belt here folks. The last time I saw Richard (Dawkins), I was watching a clip on YouTube of The Agenda with Steve Paiken interviewing Dr.Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. I've listened to Richard Dawkins talk a number of times and you know the thing that has intrigued me on those occasions, is when I've caught a glimpse of his humanity or his spiritual side. On one occasion I remember he and Stephen Hawking having a televised conversation where in response to Dawkins sighing and looking upward as if to say, what's it all about, Hawking glanced at him and quipped with a tone of indifference, something to the effect of why is this (the big questions) an issue for you?

Well, the answer should be obvious shouldn't it? We're all searching for meaning, we all want to think that somehow it matters that we're here, that deep down sense of human dignity, I am somebody, life matters, doesn't it? So, it was interesting for me to listen to Richard Dawkins talk about getting a lump in his throat, being moved almost to tears when visiting a large telescope. Or Krauss, talking about being inspired by the thought that we are stardust. Gosh, that's another Joni Mitchell song isn't it, two Joni Mitchell songs in one blog, must be because it's Friday! Stay calm, everyone.

Anyway, but here's the thing with the new atheism, often when the new atheists talk, they talk about science as being an end in itself. Is it? I'm sympathetic to some of those ideas to a point, I think okay, perhaps we can measure well-being and misery, success and failure, human flourishing, but then it always happens, I keep thinking. You have a field of study, you look at it, study it, study it some more, break it down to understand it better, and then what? It's all parts, isn't it? Where in that study do things get built up again? How does humpty dumpty get put back together? Are we more than the sum of our parts? Says who? The objective reality is, that in a vast universe that is burning up and winding down with us in it, we're pretty insignificant.

But that lump in the throat, that inspiration, if it's all just matter, stuff acting and reacting against other stuff in the throat, why would it matter if we care or not? Well, having listened to enough secularists along the way, I think I know what some would say. They would admit that there is no ultimate meaning in all of this, but they would quickly rebound in saying that we can create our own subjective meaning.Okay, but why should I accept someone else's subjective existential meaning over my own? And that's the thing with the new atheists, is that they talk about other people's beliefs as delusional, while demanding that you accept their subjective meaning over your own, which is why I'll take Neitszche's unsparing honesty about such things over the new atheists' smily scientism any day. In other words, if it's all just opinion, one person's crap shoot for meaning over another's, I think I'll trust my own intuition.

And I'll tell you why, because I don't see a madman or a Charlatan when I read the New Testament, nor do I see myth as a genre when I read the bulk of the Bible. I see a book that tells it like it is, praise God, that speaks to my deepest needs and aspirations. It's bigger, it's a bigger hope than simply trying for a comfortable life for myself and others in the here and now. I don't mean to knock anyone else's sense of purpose here, that's not my intent, only to speak from my own experience and to acknowledge what is seldom acknowledged in secular circles, that science and technology may have wonderful outcomes in many respects, but science is often credited with much more than it can possibly offer on it's own.

In concluding, science is not on the side of atheism. The assumption that it is amounts to subjective secular interpretations of science. Dawkins himself appeared to agree with Krauss in the Steve Paiken interview, that (evolution is not inconsistent with theology), nor is the big bang, nor is the information content of DNA or cosmic fine-tuning (I would add). But while science is not on the side of secularism, it appears that our secular culture has an appetite for expressions of secular opinion. These are two qualified scientists who are talking popular level secular philosophy while not being adequately trained in philosophy to deconstruct their own arguments. Nor am I, for the record, but I enjoy listening to people who are, and it sounds reasonable to me to think that with theism, unlike atheism, there is the possibility of an objective foundation for rationality and ethics and purpose and aesthetics, in the groundwork of an intelligent designer. And that for me, is a thought that truly inspires, even if I'm objectively wrong.


thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvery


The Agenda:"Rise of the New Atheists"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEClFXjx_fQ

and here's Joni: "The last time I saw Richard"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C01MY7MlJd4

image: Richard Dawkins





Finally, I decided to include this, for anyone who may be interested.  This is the third part of an interview with William Lane Craig. Dawkins has refused to debate Craig, but Krauss has engaged in some recent dialogues. Craig is a double PhD. in philosophy and theology.

Here's the link:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/mediaf/podcasts/uploads/RF_Podcast_Examining_the_Content_of_the_Krauss_Debates_Part3_2013.mp3

The entire series and debates, etc., can be found at:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/reasonable-faith-podcast/latest

and here's a YouTube page containing the Australia dialogues/ debates between Craig and Krauss:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=craig+krauss&oq=craig+krauss&gs_l=youtube.3..35i39l2j0l4j0i10l2j0l2.27749.31940.0.32329.12.12.0.0.0.0.97.934.12.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.11.youtube.1FY47wY2wR0

Phobias here there and everywhere (weapons)

I have four little girls, all quite young, and they're all afraid of spiders. In fact, they seem to be afraid of anything with more legs than the fluffy, sometimes very large, dogs and cats in the neighborhood that they're always running up to and begging passers-by to pet. But for whatever reason, where the littlest of critters are concerned, my girls seem to recoil with fear, as sometimes I am kept from getting to bed because they're still awake and sobbing,"there's a spider in my room." Get me a shoe girls, or better yet, get your own shoe," I sometimes have been known to say from my soft and weary pillow.

But sometimes I tell my kids this story of when I was a little girl and I was also paralyzingly afraid of spiders, until that day when I was looking through some cardboard boxes in the old farmhouse where I was raised in rural Nova Scotia. I must have felt something strange when I stopped what I was doing and looked down to realize that a very large spider with very long legs had landed on my very bare foot."What did you do Mom," they then ask, their eyes big with anticipation, knowing the story. I then open my eyes big and pause dramatically, and then lean towards them as they get excited, "well I jumped and I screamed and I shrieked and I ran, and you know what?" I realized sometime after that that I wasn't afraid of spiders anymore.

I'd be lying if I said that I've never experienced anxiety about the sorts of things I'm writing about these days. Much like the neurotic, we politically incorrects often know we're not P.C. I'd also be lying if I said I've never experienced social anxiety in approaching or befriending people who I know hold very different views than myself. But I think it gets easier, dare I say. And you know what else, as someone from a rural background myself, I think we should have more compassion for people who may not be in a position to meet people who hold different views than themselves. I say that knowing, that's where some of the political divide is, between rural and urban, between parts of the world that are more open, and parts of the world that are unaccustomed to technology, media, development, etc.

Sometimes it is a phobia, a fear of the unknown, a fear of the other that drives people's behavior, but I'm inclined to think that often it is also that people have a different set of reference points, a different holy book, a different culture, a different language, political system, history, etc. What bothers me is when I hear the term "phobia" thrown around as a weapon, or "anti," and especially the word "hate" thrown around as a psychological tactic used to intimidate and silence people who are well-different. Ironically, it appears that when people fail to really engage those who hold different views, they aren't acting in a spirit of openness themselves. It becomes about power, doesn't it? They aren't trying to understand the other person's reference points, the things that are dear to them. Ironically, it often appears that they are acting from fear or judgement themselves, as they tell others not to judge.

I'm not saying that people don't sometimes have a right to be frustrated, or have legitimate concerns. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not telling anyone what to think here. I'm just asking for the right to respectfully disagree, without being labelled and harassed. What I am suggesting is that rather than throwing around words like "hate" and "anti" and "phobia," that we truly begin to understand where different groups of people are coming from as a means to more effective dialogue. Maybe, just maybe, both sides have a point, and maybe we can learn something from each other's differences, as we begin to move forward.


Thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey



Jars of clay: Weapons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojZQwCJk2hY


Image: Yip, that's him!

Slow change and redundancies

I got it all, looking back, how the world was created in 6 literal days, how the world was oh so new, when my world was new too, being all of 11 years old. The Bible believing summer camp where time still passes slow in my memory, like a southern drawl in a long skirt on a summer's day, and this Canadian kid trying to understand why people looked at me funny when I said I was Catholic. But for one week in the then summer my days were filled with big ball volleyball and sermons to make you fear God and man and rock and roll. It's a long time ago now, though it left a mark on my psyche and a spark in my imagination, a hope of something more and though new conversations seem to have found me over the years, an old debate still catches my ear now and then.

But I've grown up, and everything is complicated when you grow up, at least that's how it seems to me, answers elude and venom ignites, but compromise seems to sit snugly in the middle of my newfound balance. I don't care anymore if Darwin was right, in fact I could not care less. I'm not threatened by whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old-it matters not, because all time and material process really demonstrate on a theistic worldview is what a friendly greeter at a local church door who's walked with the Lord for 40 years will tell you when you're down, that the Lord's mill grinds slow but it grinds fine. Or something like that, but in other words, often God takes his time. Unless you talk to a Biblical literalist, but then you'd have to go looking for one of those, but most of us I expect have mellowed on the age old controversy. But if you stop to think about it, evolution was never a threat to theism, though an anti-intellectual strain of American culture may have felt so in another time. Whether God created in billions of years or thousands of years, what difference does it make to the average theist now?

I've heard it said though, that prior to Darwin, atheism was not taken all that seriously, could that be true, that atheists once kept quiet? It's hard to imagine isn't it, those of us that have grown up in a hardened secular culture, but when Dawkins says that evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, what would happen if it was demonstrated that there were problems with evolutionary theory? How would the now secular institution respond? After decades of making the rest of us feel like we're all bumbling idiots for believing our senses, that if it looks like a designed duck, well it simply cannot be...even if that duck is no longer assumed to be constituted by simple self-assembling 19th century inspired blobs. That duck has DNA, a self-assembling library of genetic code. Code... as in programming? Now this would be the part where I get all sheepish, as opposed to ducky, because I know that I'm just another baa in the barnyard of a very complicated subject, but does it not seem like the upwardly mobile specimens of courtly opinion have some splainin' to do?

Coming down to earth, I'm not going to pretend to be equipped to discuss this controversy in full, but here's what I don't understand, why is it always assumed that theists are the only ones who could possibly have an agenda? A lot has changed since the 19th century, since the HMS Beagle expedition, not to mention a famous caricature of a 1925 trial, but no amount of new evidence seems to shake our commitment to a Darwinian view. I try to keep an open mind, maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. I try to listen to both sides, but I'm acknowledging what has been an overlooked truth for a very long time, that a sophisticated theism has nothing to fear of evolution, but evolution remains the lifeline of a secular worldview, a secular worldview that has quite arguably become institutionalized. It's not a scientific argument, I know that, but I think the emotional and personal and spiritual nature of this discussion is often overlooked.  And there is no neutral ground, contrary to popular opinion, materialism has metaphysical implications too. I say this while qualified academics are being punished for seeing the obvious implications of systematic complexity in the building blocks of life. But interestingly, they are only noting what most of us observe consciously or unconsciously all the time, the intelligibility and apparent design of an ordered, predictable universe, the same order and predictability that makes science itself possible.

So, theists are not the ones whose worldview would be shaken by the possibility of problems with evolutionary theory. And yet it is theists or any theory with possible design implications that is assumed to be false from the get-go, not that ID's critics are stopping to think about it long enough to understand ID before dismissing it. As for me, I'm an example of what I suspect is the real reason why evolution has never gained the unquestioning acceptance of the masses. It's not about fundamentalist religion, it's about the conundrum of something coming from nothing and the mystery of how one species could morph into another. To the common, it makes no sense. We just don't see it happening in the barnyard. No sensible person would deny that micro evolution is a fact, varieties of plants and animals, variation within a species, but supporters of evolution seem to care little about distinguishing between small changes or variety within a species and the enormity of what macro evolution would entail. To my knowledge there remains to be no lab-demonstrated, predictably repeated evidence of macro-evolution. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I remember a minister saying with sympathy once, that it would have been hard for people to realize that the sun didn't revolve around the earth, that it would have shaken people's views about so much, about themselves, about a human being's place in an insecure world. As theists we've been analyzed, put on the couch, summed up and diagnosed. It's not hard to imagine that people might seek comfort in an insecure world, but neither is it hard to imagine that some people might seek comfort of another kind, the thought that they will never be summed up themselves, that there are no absolutes by which to be measured or need to be forgiven...and maybe if this life is not so bad as human history has often been, is it that unlikely that some people might prefer to live it out in relative western ease, without the thought of an overseer or accountability to an ultimate moral authority? In other words, often the psychological arguments that are used against theists are a double-edged sword that cuts though our mutual subjectivity.

In nearing end, I was watching this clip the other weekend and I might have been sickened by it, if I hadn't seen so much of this sort of thing, that I just rolled by eyes. Stephen Meyer, I.D. proponent, trying to talk about science of all things, while a Darwin advocate had the usual rapt attention of listener support and sympathy, while she/they typically choose to limit scientific findings to suit her/their naturalistic expectations. Just once, I'd like to see a reporter question an evolutionist's motives, their worldview assumptions or potential bias. A few suggestions when broaching a subject with potential secular worldview implications, please stick to the science, just the facts please, what does a 1925 trail have to do with present day research, are you familiar with the latest research? What do you say to Dr. Meyer's point?

It's sad, but just once, I wish that the shoe could be on the other foot, that some of the questions along the road could be directed to the other side. It shouldn't be hard to explain the emergence of a duck, a simple duck to an audience that has long been taught to assume that a duck would just naturally emerge on a very long arduous evolutionary sideroad, but is it quite so easy to explain to an educated audience, the emergence of specified assembly directions inside the duck? The audience wants to know, where did the information come from? How was it assembled? What is the likelihood of complex machinery occurring from an unguided natural process? And finally, we might ask, at what point is a positive case for design characteristics, considered alongside the best evidence for evolution?

But you know, for me personally the sad thing about this discussion is that our present culture of slow change and institutionalized redundancies is that it is limiting the scope of human imagination and inquiry. When Dawkins says that some questions are the questions of a three year old he is right, they are, but those same unbridled questions represent the explorations of many of the greatest minds in human history, many of whom were theists whose personal convictions lead to the development of western science. The fact that it is no longer acceptable to ask unbridled questions, what does that say about our present day culture? If I may suggest, it's a teleological self-portrait, a purposeless design of a postmodern mind.


Thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey


DNA image:





A few interesting links as starting points:

http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/2012/02/one-long-bluff-review-of-richard.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a-h88ziYA4

http://www.idthefuture.com/2013/06/the_michael_medved_show_weekly_8.html

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050638/the_coding_found_in_dna_surpasses_mans_ability_to_code_stephen_meyer/

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/revisiting_the058771.html

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4138621/the_digital_code_of_dna_solid_proof_of_intelligent_design_dr_donald_e_johnson/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3507639/signature_in_the_cell_by_stephen_meyer/

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651/stephen_c_meyer_the_scientific_basis_for_intelligent_design/


Finally, here's that Myers/ Scott interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYfcOtLqbgo

Seeing red being blue

When I was a young kid, oh maybe it wasn't that long ago, but it always seems like you were younger when you're just past an old way of thinking. But I do remember looking back, even when I was in the debating club in high school, and really not understanding where people were coming from, who held different views than myself. Even earlier than that, I remember staring at the television and seeing signs as a pro-lifer,"keep your laws off my body" and wondering as a kid, don't they know that's wrong? I just couldn't understand it.

I think I get it now, it's the right of someone to make that choice at the end of the day, as hard as it may be for me to understand, why someone would make that choice. (Sigh). But I do remember thinking when I was younger, associating the word liberal more with the word libertine, to be quite honest. Now that I'm older, I think I get that it has more to do with liberty.

But you know the funny thing, I don't think of myself, speaking personally, as being liberal or conservative. I just think of myself as a Christian, a follower of Jesus, a person of faith. That's what I want on my tombstone folks, Margaret Harvey...walked by faith. I don't want any other partial or partisan or political tag attached to me, other than that I did my best to live out my faith as best I could, grit and all.

But sometimes I've reflected on conservatism and liberalism, and I think it would do us good as a society that seems to be becoming more and more polarized to remember the heart of the traditional political spheres. If liberal is about liberty and the rights of the individual, conservatism is a concern for the society as a whole and the needs of the society to remain cohesive, the best interest of the whole, the needs of the group, or at least that's how I've come to think about it in terms of social issues. I don't care for the term progressive, because it seems to suggest that if you're not on the progressive bandwagon that you're well -what's the opposite of progressive? You tell me. I prefer the traditional terms, liberal and conservative. Once again, liberal stressing the worth and dignity of the individual and conservative stressing the needs of the society, and the best interest thereof. There's a balance in there somewhere, right?

But you know, the occurrence that brought this reflection to mind, is that recently a Toronto Star reporter infiltrated a faith-based healing ministry in Toronto. The name of the organization is Living Waters. For me, this hits home as a person of faith, because I attended a Living Waters program myself not that long ago. For me, as someone from an emotionally abusive background, it was a positive emotional and spiritual healing experience. I benefited from the program, in short. The way in which this was done by the Toronto Star reporter upsets me, the deceit, the trickery, the breach of trust. This reporter lied about who he was, in short. In the articles that I read, there seemed to be little regard for the rights of people like myself, who want and actively seek out faith based healing programs, and the right of churches or faith-based organizations to carry out similar programs in accordance with their own beliefs. Nobody is forced into these programs, they are strictly voluntary.

Now I try to be fair, that's what I do, I try to be fair, and I try to look at things from different perspectives. I'm not involved in the leadership of Living Waters, I was only a program participant. For a better answer, one might want to talk to someone who would actually know their policies, but the sense I have is that generally speaking, the mistake that has sometimes been made by faith-based healing ministries is to try to change sexual orientation, which admittedly has lead to a lot of hurt for some people. If this is the complaint, to some degree at least, I understand and accept his basic general criticism. I have another blog piece that deals with that ideological divide in more depth. See: http://margaretannharvey.blogspot.ca/2013/09/defining-our-terms-heart-of-matter.html     
                  
That's a whole discussion in and of itself, as to what "healing" looks like, but I think that in that this issue is so emotionally and politically charged, and when it becomes more about what you're supposed to say or what you're opinion is supposed to be (sigh), let's just say that I'm skeptical of this reporter's coverage of Living Waters. Personally, I don't think for a minute that same-sex attraction is as simple as people like to make it, and let's be frank, that's where the criticisms arise, from supporters of the gay community. Nobody seems all that bothered by efforts to help people recovering from divorce, abuse, etc. And yet that is the 95% of people that Living Waters attempts to help with the minimal resources that they have. Little thought seems to be given to the needs of the vast majority of those people who are suffering in aiming to discredit and defund a program that is largely run by volunteers who give generously of their personal time. Nor is there any thought to the scope of mental illness in our culture or the connection of addictions or abuse to mental health issues and the inadequacy of services that are out there for people with limited means. I've lived it, frankly, and Living Waters was one of the few times in my life that I felt like someone took the time to listen. "There's a need," is a very believable quote that I remember hearing from a living waters volunteer. Yes, there is a need, and it appears that somehow in this process this professional journalist failed to observe that need. There is a need, and these are charitable programs in local churches that are helping to meet that need. Shame on the Toronto Star and Graham Slaughter, while they're attempting with a very narrow scope and a very broad brush to discredit the work of dedicated volunteers in our urban communities!

In continuing, my experience of Living Waters is that the program tends to be largely self-directed, as in, what would you like to talk about or pray about? What would you like us to help you with? In terms of the basic program, again, I know it to be fairly general in it's approach, and individuals speak from their own experience which frankly-they are entitled to. It would be true, I expect, that at some point a participant may not be suitable for the program, but I think one must keep in mind that these are church programs. If I may be so bold, I wouldn't go to Italy and complain about how everyone keeps speaking Italian. When in Rome..expect frittatas. I reserve my right to an opinion at the end of the day, bottom line, and am taking a stand for religious freedom here, which appears from where I'm standing to be going the way of the Greco-Roman Empire. Furthermore, I don't think it's that unreasonable of an idea to think that there could be environmental influences involved with same-sex attraction for some people at least. In much the same way that we ask the nature/ nurture question with most other issues, I don't think that's an unfair question to ask or consider.

My understanding is that much of the APA's direction on this issue is activist rather than research based. I understand that there is a very legitimate concern for LGBT rights that is driving much of the discussion that surrounds these issues, I think it may take years if not decades before LGBT issues can really begin to be viewed through an objective lens. My point is quite simple and stems from the personal narratives that I have heard which are very diverse. I expect that will be the conclusion of professionals as this controversy settles down in time (that individual narratives vary considerably), as those rights issues are addressed and understandable demands for equality are met. I can hope at least, that in time there will be more room for varying opinions, both professional and personal, but until then I acknowledge the bulk of that as my personal perspective at this time. Regardless of my opinion however, what does remain a fact, is that there is a substantial community of people who have struggled with these issues but yet choose to identify with their conservative faith communities rather than with their personal struggles with same-sex attraction, and this community is largely ostracized by the mainstream popularized view.

But for me, what I want people to hear when they're reading this, is that I affirm that it should be up to the individual to sort out what they wish to sort out on their own time with respect that there will be different narratives for different people, and not force one view on a whole group of people. I just want a faith based option to be available to persons who want that option, is that too much to ask? I think there is an understanding at least with some people that I've talked to in faith-based healing ministries that this is a complex issue, but again, Living Waters could give you a better answer on that themselves. And that's what I don't understand with this reporter's actions. Christian ministries are an outreach to the community, and lying is a sin if you're a devout Christian. If he had questions, why didn't he just ask, in an open-hearted spirit of dialogue and inquiry? Who did he think he was infiltrating -CSIS -on questions of national security?

More importantly, I would like to point out that a first point of Christian theology is that we're all broken people in need of redemption. Nobody is in a position to judge anyone else. I think there is an assumption in the culture that these ministries are somehow trying to hurt the gay community when in reality I think the truth is much the opposite, that many of these controversial ministries started before these issues were mainstream in churches or in secular media. I think that says something, that as much as we've made mistakes and learned along the way, that many of the people involved in these kinds of ministries are people like myself if I may say, who have a heart for the marginalized, and a desire to reach out to people who are hurting. These were ministries from the get-go, who were attempting to reach out to a community of people who have been traditionally marginalized by the larger society and in the church. 

In nearing close, I think it's important to stress, having participated in a Living Waters program myself, is the understanding that I gained during that process of how important confidentiality is in a program like Living Waters, and that's what makes me angry. Can you imagine, and this is fiction (any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidence), but take a moment, imagine that you have a woman who was raped on one couch, a man who was sexually abused as a child on another hypothetical couch, someone who's struggled with intimacy in relationships for all of their adult life, to finally find a program where you slowly begin to open up, knowing that you were told that your privacy would be respected, to find, a considerable length of time into a program that someone of another name was actually a reporter...do the math. And people like this only seem to be concerned with the brokenness of people who agree with them. Imagine that.

It upsets me. It also upsets me, getting back to my opening paragraphs, in talking about the principles of respect for the individual, the traditional principles of historic liberalism, in assessing what I've observed so much of in the media in recent years, in terms of how these controversial issues are covered.  More specifically, in terms of how GBLT issues are covered in the media. Namely, everyone seems to hand pick the stories (and this is on both sides to be fair), that fit with their own views. Trust me, you're not going to hear the stories of happily average gay families in socially conservative publications, nor are you going to hear about the person who's conservative Christian faith has positively impacted their struggle with same-sex attraction in liberal articles, posts, etc. (Sigh).

But they are both out there! I'm not asking anyone to agree with me here, if people do, gosh that would be really nice, but I'm one of the very few people I know of writing on these issues, who's actually trying to leave room for people to disagree with me. Does that make me liberal? Shocker to me if it does, but then again, I never did dogmatically identify with either political sphere. But wouldn't it be something if someone like this Toronto Star reporter, were actually to leave room for Living Waters, and the people like myself who would like to be able to say (and be heard in saying), thanks for your tax-deductable donation, it made a difference and we appreciate it! Please don't try to take our right to make decisions for ourselves, or the support of the few people who've supported us. If you don't like it, just don't go there, you know, kinda' like a strip club. Isn't that what liberals are fond of telling conservatives? Just-run along. It doesn't concern you. But I'm not going to say that. I'm going to say that it's a big enough world, for us to disagree and remain respectfully -civil                                                                                                                                          

Thanks for listening,

Margaret A.E. Harvey



Toronto Star article including statement from Living Waters:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/05/toronto_christian_program_tries_to_heal_gays.html

taken from the above:

Women and men participate in a Living Waters program  to address a range of personal issues, -from sexual abuse to addiction, from anger problems to low self-esteem, from sexual identity to divorce. The vast majority of people who enroll in Living Waters want freedom from addiction and healing from abuse, about 5% of participants have unwanted same-sex attraction.  With ongoing research we have grown in our awareness that it is highly unusual for an individual to shift from being same-sex attracted to being exclusively heterosexually attracted and we discuss with our leaders and volunteers the importance of not promising this unusual kind of "change."

Living Waters Canada

The myth of secular neutrality

I was just thinking the other evening, about the proposed new Quebec "secular values" charter, and the thought crossed my mind, how it is that some people are able to entertain the idea of what would amount to the implementation of an institutionalized secularism, over all other belief systems, and it occurred to me that this may be because there is this ongoing myth in our culture that secularism amounts to a sort of neutral ideological zone. But is it?

I'm just thinking about this, feel free to help me out. If we were to transplant "modern western secularism" to another part of the world, I don't know, how about present day Asia or Africa or ancient somewhere or other, would it be a neutral zone there? They would have to start answering questions pretty quick wouldn't they? Such as well, what is secularism? What does it mean? Where does it come from? Or most interestingly, why do you believe that? What would modern-day Quebec secularists say to those questions?

Now you might say Marg, it's really quite simple, secularism is a lack of religiosity or simpler still, separation of church and state in a political sense. But when people start to impose secularism on the expression of individual citizens, they're moving towards something else aren't they, an overarching secular society where people are expected to conform to formal secular institutions, which is one very big issue in it's own right. I'd like to go a bit deeper though, in asking if separation of church and state is enough in itself to ground a culture, to bind a people, to fight for?

You know the funny thing, for me looking back on my early life. I grew up in a little town in northern Nova Scotia in the 80's and early 90's. I don't remember anyone talking about values, in between reciting the Lord's prayer or singing O Canada first thing in the morning at school. Nor can I recall a political party ever talking about values. Do you know what I remember? This would have been when I was about oh, ten, twelve years old or so. I used to think that Canadian politics was sooo boring, because there was so little difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals, and they always got in (one of them), so it hardly mattered who you voted for, or at least that's how it seemed to me. Now I look back and I think maybe that wasn't all bad, when the left and the right met more in the middle, and there seemed on the whole to be more respect. But you know the first time I can remember a politician talking strongly and unequivocally, emphasizing "our values" presumably over someone else's values or lack of values? Paul Martin during a political campaign after 9/11. That's not that long ago, is it?

Just a crazy question, but how did we ever survive as a society without talking about values for so long (if my memory is correct)? What I'm saying is that growing up in that little northern Nova Scotia town, where the population was 83% Roman Catholic, which included my family, why would there have been a need to talk about values? There was an assumed values, and everyone knew it. That's my point.

I chat with secularists online sometimes. They're nice people. They really are. So often they are the nicest of people, and the questions they ask me are often along the lines of, well, why can't we just be nice, we don't need religion. People are just naturally nice, aren't they? Why can't we all just be-nice?

I was listening to Ravi Zacharias the other evening. I love Ravi. Ravi was answering a similar, why can't we all just be nice question from an audience member and his response was to quote a hardline Muslim saying very directly to a visiting westerner having a lite lunch somewhere in a Middle East cafe "first we're coming for the Saturday people, then we're coming for the Sunday people." Fun stuff, while you're eating your tabbouleh (sigh). But the important thing to take from that, is that in that person's mind, that would be a good thing! A good deed, do in one enemy, then the next. That's a worldview folks, as was communism, and why is it may I humbly ask, that it seems as though the countries with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage, are the ones that offer the best quality of life, the most respect for their citizens as individuals? Why is that? Is it secularism, separation of church and state, that is the source of all good things, or is it the once common values and intrinsic egalitarianism of our western spiritual heritage? If it's secularism, then why wasn't that same quality of life evident under secular communist regimes, the more secular the better, right? Ravi also mentioned speaking to a woman from China in her seventies, who had been to many countries abroad, but was shocked to hear him pray and thank the kitchen staff for a meal. That, from a representative of a great "classless" society.

I don't agree with Quebec's proposed values charter. I wear a crucifix as a Christian, and I stand with my Muslim and Jewish neighbours in asserting that this is a discriminatory piece of potential legislation. I support religious freedom, the right of people to disagree with me, and my right to disagree with them. I think we're living in a very scary time, but also a time when there is an incredible opportunity for dialogue, through modern technology, where the world is opening up in amazing new ways, where we can share ideas as never before, we can agree to disagree, but a better society doesn't start with reducing freedoms, nor do I think it necessarily starts with a given political model or separation of church and state. It starts with respect for all human beings and an understanding of the equal worth and dignity of all people.

In closing, it's not enough to assume that secularism is just the fallback metaphysical position. There is no such metaphysical neutral ground. All ideas have underlying statements of belief beneath their worldview assumptions. If they didn't, then what would a "secular values" charter be based on, if not belief in something? But also, secularists will not be able to assume their worldview much longer, because we're living in an increasingly globalized and interactive world. I just wonder though, as someone who was raised as a cultural Catholic myself, what's going on when supporters of the secular charter say that crosses are okay, because they've been secularized. Have crosses been secularized or is the cross an historic symbol that represents the bedrock foundation of Quebec's "secular" values? Could it be that the cross still has a place in the hearts of Quebecers, that despite their frustration with an historically oppressive and abusive church, they're still not quite ready to let that symbol go.


Je me souviens, God bless Quebec,




thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey


links:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/quebec-s-values-charter-what-is-it-and-what-will-it-change-1.1458292

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/secularism+coalition+backs+Charter+Quebec+Values+except+National+Assembly+crucifix/8952157/story.html

King or Luther?

For a while I've had a sense that the LGBT community has modeled itself after the black American civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. Am I right? It makes sense that they would, doesn't it? You have a group of people who are trying to gain recognition and equality, you have a model that was used to gain rights by a minority in recent decades that people are familiar with. It makes sense that they would draw reference to the same model, doesn't it?  But is it the best rights model? Well, I've thought a bit about this and I'd like to share my thoughts.

I was born in 1974 in Nova Scotia, my name is Margaret Harvey by the way. I don't remember the American civil rights movement, at least not the historic events that symbolized the black American struggle for equality. Yet I, like so so many am nonetheless familiar with famous images from that time: Martin Luther King, his historic speeches, marches, signs in the street, "I am a man" and so forth. So, when an LGBT activist puts a post online implying that you will look like these backwater yokels (carrying a sign saying "no blacks allowed") in 50 years if you oppose gay marriage now, well, I like most people get the reference. (Sigh).

Here's the thing. I, like most religious conservatives in the western world would have little trouble identifying with the gay community's desire to be treated with dignity, to be recognized as equal human beings, in principle. What I think, is that this issue is not quite as simple as race, and I think it creates more problems when we insist on making something as complex as human sexuality or human sexual behavior, simple. In other words, it's not controversial that people tend to be born black and stay black; it's not quite so obvious that people are born gay and uniformly choose to identify as gay. If it was, we would be able to recognize gay children at birth, and make accurate predictions of their future sexual behavior would we not?

But what does it matter, you may ask, if someone identifies as gay they identify as gay and they should be treated with equal dignity. Exactly! Now that's something we can hopefully all agree on, the key words being "self-identify." But what about the person who also struggles with same-sex attraction but who chooses instead to identify with their faith community, should they not also be treated with equal dignity and respect? Or, what about the person or groups of people who sincerely disagree with some sexual practices for reasons of conscience, as part of a commitment to their personal beliefs? Should they be made to feel like they are less as human beings? The point being that in forcing a uniformity of mind onto a complex issue, and not allowing differences of opinion, I fear that the mainstream secular culture is opening the door to new forms of discrimination, ironically the very thing that in other respects they are trying to eliminate. I think it's very ironic as well, that a group of people who prides itself on diversity of expression would have such a low tolerance for people who see things differently.

Having said that though, I understand where the gay community is coming from, or at least I think I do. It makes sense that if you see a group of people as the ones who are in the way of attaining equal dignity (namely religious or social conservatives), that one would try to change those same people or at least put pressure on them to get out of the way. The perceptions of gay activists would not be far off the mark in terms of religious groups having represented a large portion of historic opposition to gay rights. I understand that, and I am trying to be helpful here, in case it isn't obvious. Yet, I think that rather than trying to force a uniformity of views on gay rights issues, it would be a lot healthier as a society to simply admit that this is a complex issue and allow different groups of people to form their respective communities, in much the same way as we do with, well -religion. That's right, if you can't beat em', join em,' approach. You heard it here first folks. Feel free to laugh. But seriously, religion, or rights of conscience more descriptively, I'm inclined to think is the better model for the gay rights movement, precisely because it allows for difference. You may be scoffing, but think about it, be it Anglican, or Presbyterian, be a Mormon, or be a Muslim, pick your brand of apple. Not that I think religion is just about flavour, speaking personally. But you see, there's a reason why I'm saying this. Let me explain.

When same sex marriage was being put through in Canada, I was dead set against it, and the backwater yokel signs didn't help, not one little bit. The bitter arguments didn't help, the put-downs didn't help, the nasty letters to the editor didn't help, it all just made me feel very, very, angry. And when people are angry because they're hurt because they feel like they are being personally attacked, they put up a wall, they put up defences. I got defensive, very defensive, and I was winning arguments. I was right doncha' know, and I was going to prove it. But being told I was this or that, the name calling, the social pressure, none of it changed my mind. Do you know what changed my mind? Empathy changed my mind, Sunday school concern for the next person changed my mind, because I am somebody who cares about other people, as I readily believe are most social and religious conservatives. We're not out to get anyone, contrary to mainstream opinion, we just speak a different language, hold to a different emphasis, and unfortunately in the political sphere, often the secular and the religious do not understand each other's points of reference.

But looking back now on the last decade or so of the gay rights movement, when this issue began to weigh heavily on my heart, do you know when the light really went on? I was listening to a lecture by Nicholas Wolterstorff and he was talking about the history of human rights, and making the case that rights in the western world had really come out of the Protestant reformation, between fighting between Protestants and Catholics, within the backdrop of a core Judeo-Christian cultural ideal that human beings have an intrinsic worth because we are created in the image of God, capable of having an eternal relationship with a personal transcendence. This Judeo-Christian concept, arguably gives an incredible value to the individual person, over other ideologies that emphasize the value of a given system of thought or adherence to a political or religious system over the worth of the individual.

I was listening to this lecture and it was like a light went on in my mind, and I began to think about gay rights from a rights perspective as opposed to my previous emphasis on the needs of society as a whole. What is the difference I began to ask myself, between my right to self-identify as a Christian, and someone else's right to self-identify as gay? My core beliefs never changed, yet my emphasis began to change. Having said this I remain convinced that there will always be differences between the gay community and religious communities, that no amount of persuasion or social pressure is going to change. I can't agree with the mainstream secular gay community on everything, for reasons of conscience, but I can respect their right to see things differently. I can respect their desire to be seen as equal human beings, regardless of whatever ideological differences we may have. My hope is that in time, both religious communities and the gay community will agree to this concession, to agree to disagree, while respecting each other's private space and equal rights in the public square.

So, getting back to the question I started with, Martin Luther King or Martin Luther? I think the common spirit of every major rights movement is the same, the expression of the desire of all human beings to be treated with dignity and respect. In that way, of course the more recent push for homosexual rights is akin to the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's. But because an issue like human sexuality is considerably more complex than race, I think it would be better represented as a freedom of conscience issue, where people are free to come to different conclusions. I would also be inclined to think that such a model would in time prove to be less confrontational, and hopefully would ease some of the clashes of rights that we are now seeing in the courts and in the public arena.

A case that comes to mind is the example of a gay couple in Britain who are presently suing a church to be married. I can only assume that in their minds this couple have the example of a black person being turned away from a restaurant. With that perspective, what they're doing seems quite reasonable, doesn't it? But is it akin to a black person being denied service, or is what they are doing more like a Christian demanding to be taught the Lord's prayer in a synagogue? I'm inclined to think it's the latter because they are not respecting the right of the church to it's own beliefs. Please think about this, if someone reading this hears anything that I am saying, please consider that if we are going to survive in an ever-increasingly pluralistic world, we're going to need to learn to give each other a bit of space. My suggestion to the gay couple who wish to be married in a church, build your own church. It's really quite simple, but in the meantime, please respect the rights of people who disagree with you, and please don't force your views on other people. 

It makes sense that the gay community would model themselves after the black American rights movement, as these thoughts and expression of human equality have formed the egalitarian touch points of our generation. Maybe because it's a little further back in our collective memory, we don't think about the reformers or the bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants, or what that struggle eventually resulted in, freedom of conscience and expression, a different sign for every corner. But it certainly makes sense that when early American legislators were shaping the American constitution, they didn't want to repeat the religious wars of European history. Separation of church and state remains a time-tested guiding principle. Keep the church off the state and keep the state off the church, allow people to form their own faith communities, grounded in rights of conscience, separated from those who would choose to impose their will on other people.

Speaking personally, I understand that the gay community must feel very outnumbered, and understandably feel the need to force their views to be heard, as historically they have suffered as a very marginalized people. To be fair, surely the church and other faith communities have been part of the marginalization of the gay community. In 2005 I did not understand where the gay community was coming from. When I stood against marriage equality I felt like I was being attacked. When people feel like they are being personally attacked, they have a tendency to react. I did just that because I felt like who I am as a person was not being respected. I'm a theologically conservative Christian, that's who I am. That's who we are, speaking for conservative faith communities. I can understand that the gay community feels like they have to change everybody's mind to be respected, but I don't think that's the case. You don't need to change me or my worldview, you just need to convince me to respect your right to your own convictions. Despite current popular opinion, that's not that big of a stretch in a historically Christian culture, where so many kids grew up being taught the golden rule, and I don't think it's a coincidence that these discussions are happening first in the historically Judeo-Christian west, but I'll leave it at that. There's a lot of damage here. I know that.

But personally, I really wish that the personal attacks would end, on both sides of this issue. There will never be a uniformity of mind regarding homosexuality. I do not perceive a time when this will happen. But I do perceive a time, and I think in western nations that time is near, when the gay community will take it's place in gaining historic equal rights. This effort has a lot in common with the efforts of African Americans in the 1950's and 60's, a common spirit, a common hope, but I'm inclined to think that in some ways it has more in common with the person for whom Martin Luther King was named, a German monk who stood up to a very powerful church, and said that he could not recant, that his conscience would not allow him to do so. I think there's a better model, one that's a little further back in our western development, but one that was every bit as revolutionary. Once again, the Protestant Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation resulted in a schism of the Roman Catholic Church, one that has never been repaired, but one that also resulted in greater freedom of conscience in the western world. No longer would there be one central church in the west, but many. At that time, depending on where you were, Protestants were persecuted, Catholics were persecuted, but in time there came to be an understanding of separation of church and state, as well as freedom of conscience for individuals.

In summing up, what I'm saying is that rather than try to convince everyone to conform to a set model or expectation, that it would be a lot healthier to allow religious groups the right to disagree for reasons of conscience, while at the same time for religious minorities to accept gay rights in the public sphere, also as an issue of conscience. That way, it would be understood that not everyone agrees on this issue, but we should all enjoy the same rights publicly. Allow the controversy, allow the discussion, allow for difference, allow people in the gay community to also sort this out according to their own beliefs as well as for religious groups to accept gay rights in the way that we accept diverse religious expression in a pluralistic society.

Personally, I think that approach would take the bite out of the controversy of this issue, simply acknowledging that it is a controversial, complex issue, and allow people to sort it out accordingly to their own conscience. Thereby allowing different churches and groups to form organically, accordingly, just as the Anabaptists and the Calvinists and the Anglicans and so forth did so long ago. It's not as recent in our memory, but it is most definitely part of our western heritage, as it may be the origins of tolerance in the western world. Now that, my friends, would be a good historical reminder for an increasingly polarized time, to agree to disagree, to live and let go.



Thanks for listening,

M.A. Harvey