In the March issue of the Atlantic, Walter Russell Mead suggests that evangelicals in the U.S. are becoming more moderate as they mature into the mainstream, shedding their more strident tone as their influence grows in politics and society. One example of this, of course, is the move beyond the longstanding focus on gays and abortion, toward “creation care.” This past weekend, writing in the Washington Post (registration required), E.J. Dionne Jr. proclaims the death of the culture wars, not because one side or the other has finally emerged victorious. Instead, as we head to presidential elections this fall, voters simply have too much on their minds — for example, the liberation of Iraq, the state of the economy, the place America stands in the world—and don’t have the time to be worried about “values,” like they could in the past.

It’s too early to tell if this really is the trend both authors see it to be (just between reading this blog and the Humanist, it seems a case can be made that the religious right is not mellowing out that much). But if we grant the authors their assumptions, what does it mean for the humanist movement? Of course, on a philosophical level, humanism is so much more than just a reaction to religion. But when it comes to day-to-day activism in the public square, not only are we out there pushing our worldview forward, we’re doing all we can to push back against most everything the religious right is spewing out. What would happen if evangelicals continue proselytizing on an individual level, but no longer tried to impose their views on the rest of society through legislation? Or, what if they started promoting viewpoints that our movement could support?

Something the humanist movement has never openly and honestly articulated is the ideal role we envision religion playing in society. Do humanists only seek to reduce the influence of the religious right in the public square, ensuring a secular society where religion holds no particular sway? Or do we intend to continue to push, to try and root out religious thinking in society as a whole, and create a world full of humanists? Is the latter even possible? Can religious belief be tolerated in a humanist society, and should it be? Does making common cause with religious believers on shared issues of concern mean an end to the critique of the irrationality of a belief in a god?

This is an issue that we already face as we work with religious liberals on those issues of common concern. But our agreement on various issues are arrived at by very different means, and very different routes. If we truly are facing a trend of a religious right that is more moderate, or of a religious right that is simply less relevant, the question then becomes where does that leave us, and where do we go from there?

Back in August of 2006 Germany not only gave a 27-year-old lesbian asylum because she would face persecution if she was sent back to Iran, its ruling set a binding precedent for similar cases. But today in Britain a gay Iranian teenager and a 40-year-old Iranian lesbian are leading the cause for an immediate moratorium on deportations of gays and lesbians seeking asylum because they are afraid they will be persecuted or even executed if they return to Iran. The following is from the Islamic Punishment Act, which carries provisions for homosexual acts:

Art. 110: The prescribed punishment for homosexual relations in case of intercourse is execution and the mode of the execution is at the discretion of the religious judge.

Art. 111: Homosexual intercourse leads to execution provided that both the active and passive party are of age, sane and consenting.

Art. 112: Where a person of age commits homosexual intercourse with an adolescent, the active party shall be executed and the passive party, if he has not been reluctant, shall receive a flogging of up to 74 lashes.

Art. 113: Where an adolescent commits homosexual intercourse with another adolescent, they shall receive a flogging of up to 74 strokes of the whip unless one of them has been reluctant.

Articles 114 to 126 establish how to prove homosexual intercourse.

Articles 127 to 134 relate to lesbian sexual relations. Punishment for sexual intercourse among lesbians is 100 lashes. If the offense is then repeated three times the punishment is execution.

The Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted. But Omar Kuddus of Gay Asylum UK demanded that Britain follow the example of the Netherlands and Germany in imposing a moratorium on all deportations involving gay and lesbian Iranians. He asked: “How many more young Iranians have to die before the British Government takes action?”

Would you trust the reasoning of a society that places a death penalty on crimes it’s willing to ignore if the perpetrator is discreet? Would you want to bet your child’s life on their ability to be discrete? Would you trust that the religiously zealous around you wouldn’t need to know what you were up to in your private life, especially if they thought you were odd or just disliked you?

We have to get past this just-don’t-flaunt-it-and-you’ll-be-okay reasoning which has often been foisted on women and now GLBT people. Most often it is pushed on them to their detriment. It is obviously out of date and (especially in the situation in Iran) dangerous. We must let people have the property of their own identity before we can truly call our society humanist.

Charlotte Allen hosted a Q&A on the Washington Post website today to respond to the reactions to her inflammatory opinion piece asserting women are dumb. Read the transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/04/DI2008030402153.html

I managed to get three of my questions in, although I do feel they were given short shrift by Allen:

Washington: You write that you doubt women’s representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That’s absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict.

 

Washington: Do you believe caring for children, men and the weak is something that should be valued less in society? I ask because you seem to imply that they are tasks only fit for the dim, and unworthy of an intelligent mind. What do you think about men who are caregivers?

Charlotte Allen: Quite the opposite: I think that caring for children, men, and the weak are the most important things that can be done. It’s women who have devalued them by mocking stay-at-home mothers, etc.

 

Washington: Were you trying to start a constructive debate with your opinion piece? Do you think that’s happened? I think by concluding that women are “dumb” because of real sex differences that exist just pisses people off, and thus precludes any real debate on this issue—and it’s something I think should be explored openly. Name-calling doesn’t get us anywhere.

Charlotte Allen: I called no names, but to be quite honest, I wasn’t trying to start a debate, constructive or otherwise. I was just expressing my views.

Read a rebuttal to Allen’s piece that was posted on the WP website here.

I have to admit I’m starting to wonder if Allen’s opinion piece doesn’t actually signify something good after all. In Allen’s Q&A session she argued that men are lampooned all the time as idiotic oafs but women are off-limits, unfairly so. I don’t know if I completely agree with that (surely it’s not hard to think of instances in which popular culture makes fun of women), but it’s certainly much more mainstream acceptable to poke fun at those who have power in society (i.e. men). Maybe the fact that a media powerhouse such as the Washington Post would publish a “humor” piece that pokes fun at women means that women have truly risen above their historically weaker status in society–both institutionally and socially. Maybe this is an important turning point, rather than the display of crass cattiness I first thought.

Or, you know, at least in addition to.

Early this year, several female Muslim students at Harvard University felt uncomfortable exercising at a campus gym due to their religious and cultural beliefs. They approached the school to consider opening at special hours for women only, and Harvard agreed.

Now several students are unhappy with the new policy because it discriminates against men. According to a recent AP report on this issue:

The policy is already unpopular with many on campus, however, including some women who consider it sexist.

“I think that it’s incorrect in a college setting to institute a policy in which half of the campus gets wronged or denied a resource that’s supposed to be for everyone,” said student Lucy Caldwell, who also wrote a column in The Harvard Crimson newspaper critical of the new hours.

Student Ola Aljawhary, who is Muslim and works out elsewhere on campus but is not one of the women who requested the change, rejected that argument.

“The majority should be willing to compromise,” she said. “I think that’s just basic courtesy. We must show tolerance and respect for all others.”

I wrote a blog post previously on the issue of building foot baths in bathrooms at the University of Michigan in order to accommodate Muslim men and women, and my argument for that can be applied here.

Where do we draw the line? First special hours for Muslim women to exercise without men. What next? Faculty-only exercise hours because the older generation are uncomfortable seeing constant reminders of younger, fitter versions of their previous self? Will this lead to hotel pools or public beaches accommodating religious minorities? Let’s be serious.

It would be impossible for Harvard to accommodate everyone’s special needs, and this should be no exception. I’m in favor of showing sensitivity toward religious beliefs; perhaps a smaller building funded by private donors could be built on or near campus that would be satisfactory. Or even a special room in the gym for women-only, provided the same workout equipment in that room can be found in another room that’s accessible to all. But you can’t win ‘em all.

Or so the Washington Post says. In one of the most insulting, inflammatory opinion pieces about sex differences I’ve ever read, Charlotte Allen asserts that because of gender differences in spatial perception ability, car accident rates, and even literature tastes, women are dumber than men. She ends her piece by suggesting women might just well be happier if they stayed home and took care of others:

So I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home… Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are…kind of dim.

Well. Maybe romance novels aren’t the most mind-expanding book list choice, but at least we can read.

Allen is seeing an awful lot in a few minor differences between men and women. Certainly it’s true that women perform worse on average than men on spatial perception tasks (it’s actually a subject I’ve taken up myself in a past issue of the Humanist), but there is still far more variation in ability among the sexes than between. Plus, even if the differences were huge and across the board, difficulty with direction a dumber sex does not make. Moreover, Allen herself relates data that shows IQ is pretty much level between men and women anyway, so shouldn’t that pretty much clinch it? Maybe she just really hates Eat, Pray, Love.

I certainly don’t think that differences between sexes is a topic that should be taboo—the more we understand about ourselves the better off we’ll be. But to conclude that the science proves women are dim is purely asinine. Shame on Allen, and shame on the Washington Post for tacitly endorsing such drivel.

John McCain found himself being confronted by reporters wanting to know about one of his supporters, Reverend John Hagee. A San Antonio pastor with a worldwide broadcast ministry, Hagge has linked Hurricane Katrina to the gay rights movement or at least to the activities of gays in New Orleans. That doesn’t seem that radical for a televangelist but then there is Hagee’s opinion that the Roman Catholic Church is “the great whore of Babylon” and “a cult.”

“This is the apostate church,” Hagee said. “This false religious system is going to be totally devoured by the anti-Christ.”
Senator McCain had what I thought was a reasonable response. “I don’t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy,” he said. “They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.”

I don’t think it will do, but I think it came across better than senator Obama’s handling of the support of Louis Farrakhan in the Feb 26th debate.

Obama: “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”

Russert: “Do you reject his support?”

Obama: “Well, Tim, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy.”

Are these two men, Hagee and Farrakhan, just part of the followers that would attach themselves to any presidential candidate or has religion become so important that it is necessary to examine these links and try to guarantee that the candidates do not agree with the views of these men? I mean we don’t seem to examine every business that gives a candidate money, or should we? Should nothing go unchallenged during a campaign? I don’t care for the mixing of religion and politics, but is it more important than which corporations have the candidate in their pocket? Maybe I just have campaign burn out early this year.