I’ve been listening to and reading about this issue of a student at the Eastern Michigan University being booted from the school’s counselling program due to her unwavering belief that homosexuality is immoral.  It’s being billed as an all out attack against mellow, God fearin’ Christians but after some sober second thought, I’m not sure that’s what’s going on and even if it were, that I don’t think I would be necessarily opposed to the university’s action in this case.

Basically it seems that the student in question, one Julea Ward, has been outspoken regarding her belief that homosexuality is immoral and that homosexuals have made a lifestyle choice.  She has gone on to say that she does not support the notion of therapy meant to “convert” homosexuals “back” to a straight lifestyle but I have trouble thinking how her logic starts with homosexuality being immoral, continues on to “homosexuality is a lifestyle choice” and then stops before advocating for therapy meant to “fix” homosexual feelings.  I suppose it’s entirely possible that she understands that homosexual reform therapy doesn’t work and simply doesn’t know of an alternative but this is straying a bit from the topic at hand.

So here’s the skinny.  If you didn’t already guess from the title above, I’m quite in favour of the decision to kick this woman out of the school’s counselling program.  I wasn’t sure before because even though I believe her to be ignorant and short sighted in her views on sexuality, I don’t think anyone should suffer discrimination because of their social views…or at least, discrimination on the part of the state.  In considering the rights of this student, the rights of her educators should be considered as well and when the University of Eastern Michigan decided it didn’t want to instruct a student in counselling because her social views conflicted with her instructors, I think the institution was protecting the instructional autonomy of its staff.

I don’t believe that educational institutions should be established to cater to the demands of those they instruct.  Rather they should respond to market demands for teaching methods and effective instruction.  An educational institution should be able to market itself to students and if values held by a student and their instructors conflict, either it can be worked out or they should part ways.  Considering this case specifically, I believe this is why Christian schools have been established the world over to cater to those who think that their world views may be threatened by secular instruction.

Again, I do earnestly believe that Julea Ward’s view points are myopic and disgusting.  I believe that she does indeed have a right to seek out education and the career of her choice.  I don’t favour discrimination and I abhor the suppression of opinion.  silencing opposition does nothing to bolster the opposing argument.  Despite people asserting that discrimination is what took place here, I think that’s an unjustified over-complication of what should be a simple situation.

In this case, a student and her instructors have simply arrived at  an impasse.  The student could not reconcile her world views with the demands of the instructors.  As a result, I don’t see how her demands to be instructed while ignoring the views of her instructors who would certainly see her as unqualified to graduate their courses, would be beneficial either for her or them.  I don’t see how removing her from their course was outside of their rightful area of responsible consideration.  Simply showing up and being willing to participate in a class should not be the prerequisite for participation.

This is a case of an over-litigious society being put on display for all the world to see.  Instead of understanding that the two parties have irreconcilable differences, they wrap their personal disagreements up in the courts.  Yet another reason to shake one’s head from side to side while looking to the ground.  Can no one be inspirational in their desire to be responsible an d independent citizens of the world anymore?

I often call myself a Jew because in technical consideration of my ethnic heritage, I am.  My family is a Jewish family though hardly an observant one in large part.  It was when I was about 19 or 20 when I quite inadvertently found out I was Jewish when visiting my Grandmother for the first time since infancy.  It had simply never come up as a point of discussion between me and my converted Buddhist single mother.  It was as much a shock to me to find out that I was Jewish as it was for my grandmother to find out that I had not ever been told.  I should say that this doesn’t mean I don’t consider myself a Jew.  I do indeed consider myself to be Jewish and relished the close knit Jewish community in Toronto during my time there.  It’s honestly a privileged to be a part of so incredible a community full of so many kind people.

Now, even though I’m Jewish, I am perhaps more vulnerable to the label of “self hating Jew” than those who have had more foreknowledge of their heritage than I.  It doesn’t help that I am non-observant on the religious side and often quite critical in my views of Israel and the history of that entire region.  When I look to the Middle East and that area in particular, I think it has been a dark and disappointing black mark on the history of humanity as a whole.

In my eyes, there is no legitimate dispute resolution in this area of the Middle East currently underway and whether it be Egyptian, Jordanian, Israeli, Palestinian or otherwise, none of the players in the Israeli-centric Middle East conflict are viewed positively by me.  whether driven by ignorance fuelled by poverty and religion, ideology fuelled by greed or megalomania or otherwise, I am not in favour of Middle East policies from most any nation currently involved.  As is clear here, this includes Israel.

So why blog about this now?  Well, I’m becoming concerned about the propensity for media and individuals alike to jump on critics of Israel’s domestic policy as anti-semites.  It’s always been a problem of course.  Israel has done very little to make any type of distinction between policy criticism and criticism of Judaism.  Israeli leadership has very often used this to their advantage calling on critics of a nation as critics of an ethnic and religious group.  It is possibly one of the most disingenuous types of argument one can make on the world stage and rightly offends a great many people.  No one likes to be called prejudiced when they are likely not.

John posted recently on his blog about Helen Thomas being hurled from the White House Press Corps for making remarks that many viewed as strongly anti-semitic.  I didn’t view them that way and though I wasn’t surprised at the virulent outrage that followed her statements, I was expectedly disappointed.  At first glance, Thomas’ comments did seem very strongly biased against Jews in particular but it’s so easy to remember that this is frankly because Israel bills itself as the world’s Jewish state.  I should say here that as a Jew, I do not see any reason why I should ever exercise my right of return under Israeli law and identify as an Israeli. I have no desire to associate myself with the state of Israel in its current form.

Thomas said that the Jews should “Get the hell out of Palestine” and continued shortly after by saying they should go back to “Poland, Germany [...] and America and Everywhere else.”  Perhaps it’s the identification of Poland and Germany as a homeland that got everyone’s knickers in a twist but on it’s face, I don’t think those views are anti-semitic.  There is a valid and very spirited debate around the world as to whether or not the Jewish state is even legitimate in how it was established.  It was the British that essentially created Israel and began the Jewish state, forcing one group upon another.  It was like tossing powdered garlic on an exposed ulcer.  But this blog post isn’t about history, it’s about the debate of that history and our perception of it.

So in short, I don’t believe that Helen Thomas expressed anti-semitic views and her later release of a statement insisting that she regretted her comments were almost certainly (I think) a result of public pressure.  In this case, I think that the label of antisemitism and the public outraged resulting from such a label set a tone for debate that left Thomas no choice but to recant or face endless condemnation rather than dissenting discussion.  This does not strike me as an attempt at seeking the truth but rather a mission to make some one express themselves in a manner that makes us more comfortable.  Shielding ourselves like this does not help us develop intellectually.

Perhaps responding to the public momentum created by Helen Thomas’ remarks, a Canadian New Democratic Member of Parliament has recently been under the gun as well being called an anti-semite.  Libby Davies, deputy leader of the New Democrats in the House of Commons has been attacked as anti-semitic after making comments supporting a boycott of Israel and indirectly questioning the very legitimacy of the Israeli state.  In the video of her comments, she actually goes on to say near the end of it that people are often afraid to speak to their views because criticism of the Israeli state often results in accusations of being anti-semitic.  Lo and behold, Libby Davies is being accused of exactly that.

Now I don’t necessarily support a boycott, divestment from the state of Israel or sanctions and I’m not actually opposed to a two state solution despite my position that the legitimacy of Israel is indeed a valid point upon which to cast doubt.  I think the debate needs to be clear and honest but with so much ideological emotion involved in the debate, it hasn’t come close to being that.  You have multiple sides to the argument and fractured view points on those sides.  some are motivated by reason, some by a particular interpretation of history, some by an interpretation of a religion and others by simple prejudice.  Ah yes, it’s not like antisemitism or racism in regard to Arabs doesn’t exist, it simply doesn’t wash over all view points as some may assert.

I get awfully saddened when I observe the debate regarding Israel.  I stopped attempting to really get into that debate because I found constantly, a want to argue motivation, religion and ideology rather than historical evidence, facts, moral grounds or what is simply fair to the people in the region outside the context of religion.  There is so much incredible suffering and ill treatment of people going on in the Middle East within this conflict and, as mentioned above, I don’t find any one particular player to be morally superior to any other.  I see mountains of ignorance, greed, hatred, violence and essentially the worst attributes of humanity at play in this region.  I see very little peace, love, consideration of neighbours and so on.  I have to wonder if it’s not just a hopeless thing of which to think.

I am Jewish.  I strongly believe that I have a right to identify myself as such.  I am not anti-semitic nor am I inclined to racial discrimination against Arabs or any other ethnic group.  I am saddened by the States of Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt and others who participate in the massacre of what could possibly be referred to as stable living.  It is in this region that I see so little hope for normalcy and honour.  Again, I fault no one for being Jewish, Arab or otherwise, but rather I fault so many for being horribly ignorant and ill-minded in causing so great an amount of needless conflict and suffering over so many years.

The fact that the debate of Israeli statehood has been so mired in bias from all sides is a very sad commentary on the human condition of our times.  It is why I remain largely an observer of the debate and not a participant.  It is why I am so concerned about those who do participate, that they must tread lightly and avoid complete and honest intellectual positions that may help us all to understand this situation that for some is so many unfathomable miles away and for others, so unimaginably close.

All I want is for the people of this embattled region and those around the world to simply step back, take a breath, attempt to look into the eyes of their fellow human beings with whom they have so much in common and be honest with each other.  Sadly, I don’t think that’s about to happen any time soon.

Pope Benedict was recently greeted by about 280,000 cheering fans in Fatima, Portugal a short while back.  This after he made some exceptionally meek comments about the church being rocked by scandal as a result of “sin” from within the institution.  The church’s position of the media being to blame just wasn’t going over so well.

This is exceptionally tiresome.  If you’re a creep in your basement that has raped little children, you’ll eventually be hauled away and sent to prison where some guy will inform you that your name is now Tina and show you exactly what a control freak that hasn’t been laid in a while is thinking about.  If you’re a religious leader who routinely facilitated similar behaviour among priests however, no big deal.  What’s some painful and bloody child rape between friends everlasting?

Look, this is not a delicate issue.  It may deal with delicate and fragile people as they’re very young when victimized but the issue is about as brutish, ugly and in your face as you can get.  The very notion of 280,000 idiots cheering on and idolizing a man who knowingly allowed people to be raped when young while also protecting their attackers is sickening.  SICKENING!

Every papist out there who has not publicly or at least privately among close confidantes renounced any kind of relationship with the pope and the catholic church has refused to show any kind of tangible compassion for child rape victims.  That’s as simple as it gets and that’s that.  If you’re a catholic priest who hasn’t denounced the Vatican and stopped sending money to your national clergy or however your organization is structured, you’re an idiot.  If you’re a catholic papist, you’re an idiot.  If you’re anyone who even considers the pope to be some one who is all in all, above and beyond reproach, you’re a deluded idiot!  If you’re any of these, you’re also some one who really needs to check your moral compass because you’re ignoring something that you shoulnd’t be able to ignore when accounting for the most basic kind of human decency.  This is the kind of stuff that’s supposed to cause you to recoil in horror when you find out about it and maybe you should ask yourself why it really hasn’t.  Maybe you should ask yourself why, beyond some simple comments of disapproval, this hasn’t rocked you to the core.

I am really god damned tired of people idolizing those who victimize children.  All of you need to smarten right the hell up and quick.  Yes, you know who you are.

As posted recently on pharyngula, a youtube video chastising the pope and catholic church caught my eye.  As some one who can get a little touchy about excessive profanity, I was initially put off a bit but only seconds later, I understood what the song was about and how appropriate it really was.  I don’t mind a bit of profanity here and there but otherwise, I’m pretty much of the mind that excessive amounts of swearing simply means that you aren’t able to express yourself properly and that’s your own short coming.  Again however, I think a case like this is the exception.

Tim Minchin has created a very abrasive and very appropriate condemnation here and I hope you enjoy it.  If you’re a catholic, I hope you not only love the video but seriously reconsider your religion but of course, that’s entirely up to you to divest yourself of an organization that harbours child molesters.

Enjoy!

You know, this is a post I’m not so sure I should make.  I have a position on polygamy which is exceptionally liberal but on the other hand, I find the manner in which polygamy is put into practical application to be horrifying.  In trying to wrestle with these countering view points, I’ve decided to post a censored ad I ripped from kijiji.  The censoring is meant to remove details of location and I’m not sure if I’ll post the uncensored ad or not.

Here’s the deal.

I’m spending time away from home for work (as I normally do) and since work has had it’s share of hiccups, I’ve yet to actually log any hours doing anything yet this week.  I’ve been sitting about going just a little crazy cooped up in a rental room doing a lot of nothing for the past couple of days.  I’ll admit that beyond using stumbleupon to find random websites of interest and harassing teenagers on omegle, I peruse the personal ads from a number of localities on kijiji.  What can I say?  It’s good for a chuckle at the very least.

Checking out the “men seeking women” category for a particular region, I came across a very unexpected personals ad.  Among the boring, mundane, interesting and outlandish, I managed to spot the potentially disturbing.  Read below for yourself.

So, here’s my problem.  I don’t think polygamy is a bad thing.  I do however think that polygamy as justified by religious movements is typically, very badly abused.  It seems to me that using God and religious practice to keep multiple wives (why is it almost never multiple husbands?) is a cop out to those who are acting in a selfish manner.  I can’t honestly speak to the motivation of polygamous husbands acting as the head of a large family but from what we have seen of religious polygamy in Canada and the United States, it is far from liberating for women involved.

Polygamists must face facts that polygamy does not exactly have a friendly face.

Personally, I can’t imagine that most people are emotionally equipped to handle the stresses of sharing a life partner with some one else.  I very dearly love my partner and I can’t imagine sharing her with some one that would also claim to love her as I do.  It would be equally difficult I think, to claim in earnest that I could love two or more women at the same time.

So, what kind of thing does this make you think of?  If this were an ad posted for your local area, would you be wondering who the family is?  Would you care?  Would you be worried for the family members or would you give the benefit of the doubt and assume a large family with strong values as stated in the ad?

I’m not entirely sure what to think.  I am of the mind that people should do as they please but the problem with religious polygamous families is that women in particular are often coerced in some fashion.