Moderate Folks and Fanatics

"The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas."  Tao Te Ching, Ch. 59, as interpreted by Stephen Mitchell (1992).

The first two questions I have about this passage are relatively simple: If it is true that the mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas, then is the mark of a fanatic that he is enslaved to his own ideas?

If so, how does a fanatic become enslaved to his own ideas?

The next two questions I have about this passage are perhaps less simple: In so far as most or all of us see the world through the lens of our ideas about the world, are not most or all of us somewhat less than free of our own ideas?

If so, what would it mean to be free of one's own ideas?

Are Misogynists Wimps at Heart?

"The same broadcast featured a religious eight-year-old girl terrified to walk the short distance between her home and school, since she is subject to verbal abuse of ultra-Orthodox men who claim her attire is not sufficiently 'modest'." -- Source.

They must be very macho men to verbally abuse an eight year old girl.  I would like to meet them in person so I could personally congratulate these men on their macho.  I would also like to ask them what they think of Yocheved Horowitz.

Horowitz, you see, is an Orthodox woman who does not buy into the bullshit of these Orthodox men.  And apparently, because she is not a (understandably) frightened eight year old girl, she is sometimes able to shut them up.

Horowitz was on a public bus one day when one of these macho men told her to move to the back of the bus:

"Women to the back," he called out like a conductor. "To the back, to the back." He trembled with anger. A man sitting in the first row whose appearance revealed him to be a Gur Hasid, shushed him, with a finger to his lip. But the shouter paid no attention to him. "Men's area," he continued to shout. "Women to the back."

Now Horowitz turned around and said loudly and clearly: "What do you mean by 'men's area'? A geographical area?" she wondered. "What is mehadrin? Are you talking about an etrog, a lulav?" she queried, referring to two of the principal symbols used during the festival of Sukkot. "Nowhere in rabbinical law does it say that it is forbidden to sit behind a woman, not in the Shulchan Arukh and not in the Yoreh De'ah [two classical compilations of Jewish law]. What is written in the Torah and in rabbinical law is that it is forbidden to humiliate sons and daughters of Israel."

Like a deflated balloon, the man became quiet, and maintained his silence for the rest of the bus ride.

What do you think?  Do you think maybe these macho misogynists are not really so macho unless they outnumber their victims?

I have often wondered what relationship there might be, if any, between a man being a misogynist and a man being a wimp?

_________________
(H/T: Hoyden About Town)

Jennfier Keeton: Playing the Christ Card

Jennifer Keeton was until recently a graduate student in counseling at Augusta State University in Georgia. About 18 months ago, she sued the University, saying that it had violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of her Christian faith. 

Among other things, Keeton claimed University officials had told her that, in order to stay in the University's school counseling program, she would have to change her beliefs about homosexuality.  According to Court documents (.pdf pp.5-6):

[Keeton] holds several beliefs about homosexuality that she views as arising from her Christian faith. She believes that “sexual behavior is the result of personal choice for which individuals are accountable, not inevitable deterministic forces; that gender is fixed and binary (i.e., male or female), not a social construct
or personal choice subject to individual change; and that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ‘state of being.’” ASU’s officials became aware that Keeton held these beliefs when she expressed to professors in class and fellow classmates in and out of class that she believed that the GLBTQ population suffers from identity confusion, and that she intended to attempt to convert students from being homosexual to heterosexual. Keeton also said that it would be difficult for her to work with GLBTQ clients and to separate her views about homosexuality from her clients’ views. Further, in answering a hypothetical posed by a faculty member, Keeton responded that as a high school counselor confronted by a sophomore student in crisis, questioning his sexual orientation, she would tell the student that it was not okay to be gay. Similarly, Keeton told a fellow classmate that, if a client discloses that he is gay, it was her intention to tell the client that his behavior is morally wrong and then try to change the client’s behavior, and if she were unable to help the client change his behavior, she would refer him to someone practicing conversion therapy.

In Keeton's view, the University was asking her to change her beliefs, and thus violating both her right to free speech and her right to freely practice her religion.

As it happened, though, a three judge panel for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal found Keeton was mistaken to claim the University had asked her to change her beliefs.  Instead, the University had only asked her to adhere to a certain professional code of ethics.  

The school counseling program at Augusta State University is accredited by an organization with the exciting name of,  "The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)"  As part of the accreditation deal, the University agreed to teach its counseling students to professionally conduct themselves according to the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics.  The Code includes ethical principles such as (.pdf pp. 6-7):

“Counselors are aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants”

and:

“Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination based on age, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status/partnership, language preference, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.”

There are quite a few details to the case, but in effect, the University asked Jennifer Keeton to professionally conduct herself according to the ACA Code of Ethics and she refused to so.

Some years ago, I paid for my college room and board by working as a fire fighter.  I do not now recall that we ever -- even once -- asked someone about their sexual orientation before knocking down their fire or extracting them from their wrecked car.  More to the point: Had I decided back then that I would only provide my services to heterosexuals, I would have been (justifiably) fired. But the judges of the 11th Circuit said it best (.pdf pp. 30):

Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views. Judges must apply the law, even when they disagree with it. So too counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious values on their clients.

Of course, what Keeton was attempting to do with her lawsuit should be transparent to anyone: She was trying to force the University to make her an exception to the rule that counseling students must be taught to professionally conduct themselves according to the ACA Code of Ethics.  In short, she was looking for preferential treatment.

In order to secure preferential treatment, she cynically tried to play the Christ Card. That is, she deceitfully tried to fob herself off as -- not some jerk seeking preferential treatment -- but someone wrongfully oppressed because she is a Christian.

Of course, some folks are now tripping over themselves in their rush to buy into Jennifer Keeton's notion of herself as a martyr.  Here is what they have been saying...

Ramona Hicks Willis thinks, "This is not a questions of ethics, it is a power play by the homosexuals. They want to destroy anyone that does not agree with their lifestyle. Plain and simple."

The Court's ruling in the case seems to have traumatized Diana Shugar, who is suddenly ready to give up on life: "God is not the god of this world; Satan is. Satan is the invisible god of this world. He is the author of its organization, its basic philosophies, its systems of government, business, society—yes, AND RELIGIONS! It's best to just tell people of the new upcoming world ruled by our Lord and Savior. This one is beyond redemption."

Michael Galvin fully agrees with Diana that requiring Jennifer Keeton to live up to a professional code of ethics is so traumatizing the end of the world must be near: "You are right. We cannot save this world and the people in it. God desires that none would perish, but they have rejected Him and His Gospel. The date it set, the orchestra is in tune, the curtain is soon to be lifted."

Adrienne Elizabeth Crawford cannot believe Keeton did anything wrong.  Apparently, she just doesn't get what the case was all about. Nevertheless, she's sure it has something to do with the way Christians are always being persecuted: "It’s just really sad that this woman is being reprimanded (so to speak) for her beliefs. We ALL have a right to our own beliefs. I don’t believe she did anything wrong. But we as Christians should not be surprised by this persecution. After all, we live in Satan’s world. He’s the Prince of this world but only temporarily."

Tolfe Lee Albert thinks working with gay kids is a lot like risking your life -- or at least your health (he's not sure which):  "What if the student had AIDS, or a very bad cold...would she not have the right to refuse that student? Where are HER rights. Another victory for the ACLU and loss of our personal rights and dignity."

Last, Jack Oliver thinks he knows the sacred duty of a true Christian: "As a christan [sic] she is bound to speak up against queres [sic]." 

Jennifer Keeton played the Christ Card by demanding special privileges for herself while shouting that she was being discriminated against.  Naturally -- inevitably -- some folks bought her story.  But it would be a mistake to assume -- simply because some Christians have uncritically bought Keeton's story -- that the majority of Christians in America agree with them, for there is no evidence that the majority do in fact agree with the poor fools among us.

(H/T: Chappie at An Apostate's Chapel)

Why are We so Often Untrue to Ourselves?

"Do exactly what you would do if you felt most secure."
-- Meister Eckhart

Bronnie Ware is an Australian author and songwriter who for many years worked as a caregiver with people who were dying.  She was with them for the last three to twelve weeks of their lives.

When she asked her patients whether they had any regrets about how they had lived their lives, she discovered the single most common regret dying people have is that they have not been true to themselves. 

When people realize that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people have had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made.

Instead of living true to themselves, they all too often felt they had tried to live up to the expectations of others. And that, to me, is Ware's most interesting observation. Of all the reasons one might fail to be true to oneself, why is that the reason Ware heard most often?

It seems human nature to want to live up to the expectations of others.  Apparently, most of us do it every day in ways both great and small.  A friend of mine -- someone I very much admire -- is a middle-aged woman who is now discovering that she has spent her life living for others. She was raised to put the wants and needs of everyone else before her own.  And that message was both reinforced and justified by her family's fundamentalist religion.

For instance: The notion she was morally obligated to subvert herself in order to please others was so deeply instilled in her during her upbringing that she felt shock the first time someone stated to her that a woman is not required to have sex with her husband if she does not feel like it.

Today she is discovering -- one step at a time -- her own wants and needs. For the fact is, when you have been thoroughly taught to put the wants and needs of everyone else before your own, you most often suppress your own wants and needs to the point that you no longer clearly know what they are.  It is easy to tell such a person, "Be true to yourself".  But that person might have a long ways to go before she knows her real wants and needs, let alone is confident of her right to them.

Yet, we do not need to be first abused before we cast ourselves aside in order to live up the expectations of others. Abuse certainly helps us do that -- the very essence of abuse is that it unnecessarily alienates us from our true selves -- but abuse is not required for us to fail to be true to ourselves.  We are social animals.  Profoundly social animals.  Almost anyone of us, if he or she really thought about it, could list a thousand ways in which our species manifests its social nature.

It is deeply ingrained in us to desire companionship, to want the acceptance of others, to value love and friendship.  When scientists ask us what it takes to make us happy, we quite often tell them the single most important factor in our happiness is the quality of our relationships with our friends and family. Most of us at one time or another bargain for friendship by trading who we are for what someone expects of us.

Growing up, I gained a reputation for being among the most independent minded people in my cohort. It came to be expected of me that I would often go against the grain.  And there probably was some truth to that. But I paid a psychological price for it in tens of thousands of hours of loneliness. However, I did not feel lonely because I was alone.  I felt lonely because I was going against the expectations of others.

The loneliest people on earth are not those of us who are physically alone in life. Rather it is those of us who live with parents, siblings, roommates, lovers, or spouses who do not accept us as we are.  Who want us to be fundamentally different than we are.  If you know how, it is easy enough to live alone while rarely feeling lonely.  Yet, it is all but impossible to live with someone who does not accept you without your feeling lonely.

If nearly anyone of us could list a thousand ways in which our species manifests its social nature, anyone of us could list a hundred thousand in which we are encouraged, cajoled, wheedled, browbeat, bullied, or forced to subvert ourselves in order to live up to someone else's expectations.

Allow me to give but one example: A friend once told me he felt he had not fulfilled his promise as a businessperson because he had spent too much of his career compensating for his weaknesses rather than building on his strengths. He then went on to tell me that, as a child, he had done well in math but poorly in English.  However, his strength in math was all but ignored while his weakness in English became the focus of his parent's and teacher's efforts to get him to "improve" himself. In the way of a child, he took that to mean that what he was not (i.e. good at English) was more important to people than what he was (i.e. good at math). Although the experience was far from devastating, and he didn't want to make too much of it, he could see how it was one of many experiences that might have contributed to his life-long tendency to pay more attention to his weaknesses than to his strengths.

Of all the reasons we are so often untrue to ourselves, I think our attempts to live up the expectations of others must rank up there as among the foremost.  But what do you think?  Is there any truth to that?  And what are the other reasons we fail to be true to ourselves?

When Barbarism Ceases to Seem Barbaric

By now, almost everyone knows about the Afghan woman who not too long ago was raped and then -- as punishment for reporting the rape -- imprisoned for adultery.  It seems people around the world have been raising hell about her treatment.  Especially after it came out that she is under pressure from the Afghan authorities and others in that country to marry her rapist!

Yet, Amanda Marcotte -- who is an excellent commentator on many issues -- pointed out in an article published the other day that many people here in America are actively working to force raped women to bear the child of their rapist. In both instances, women are being treated worse than some criminals.  Moreover, I think Marcotte is right to say that the problem in both American and Afghanistan is fundamentalism:

Our fundamentalists at home wouldn’t force you to marry your rapist, of course. No, they just want to force you to have children with him. Same song, different note: fundies around the world working hard to make sure that once a rapists chooses you to rape, he owns you forever.

Of course, some folks will insist there's a vast difference between being forced to bear your rapist's child and being pressured to marry your rapist.  And I suppose on some level they have a point.  Nevertheless, both of those practices are barbaric.

We may be more inclined to see the barbarism of being pressured to marry your rapist than to see the barbarism of being forced to bear his child, but that's only because one barbarism is more familiar to us.  And when a barbaric practice is familiar, it ceases to seem barbaric.

(H/T: Ahab at Republic of Gilead)