#it also teaches children not to ostracize lgbt people | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tptruepolitics · 4 years

Text

LGBT Thoughts

Netflix has recently decided to push transgender ideologies in their Babysitters Club series – a show directed at adolescent girls. While Netflix – an independent company that should only have to answer to itself and its shareholders – is perfectly within their rights to air such shows, the fact remains that this is a deeply damaging topic to be showcasing to the most vulnerable and malleable among us. I think it’s time we finally address the enormous elephant in the room: the LGBT community. Here I will break down my thoughts on their rights, their roles, and their realities in our society.

For much of history, there have been documented incidences of same-sex encounters. Even the Bible makes reference to same-sex relations numerous times. The word sodomy is actually originated from one such text from Genesis in reference to the city of Sodom. Shakespeare is even rumored to have been gay by some scholars. However, for most of human existence, these individuals were forced to live in secret – outcasts of society, ostracized by their own people. To be perfectly fair, religious extremism has only contributed to the past 2-4 thousand years of ridicule. Before that, it was still frowned upon (at best) by most cultures simply because it went against the laws of nature. Male and female animals and even plant parts reproduce in union with one another. There are no same-sex reproductive organisms to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong). There are asexual organisms that reproduce by themselves, but certainly no major animal species that reproduce in any extraordinary way. There is a certain species of bird, I believe, that lives in Hawaii (once again, correct me if I’m wrong) that sometimes chooses a same-sex partner for life in the absence of a proper mate, but this is certainly an exception, not a rule. To add, they do not reproduce together.

But what does all this mean for humans? How should the “laws of nature” or even God’s laws apply to humans in this age of constant progressivism and an increasing detachment from religiosity that we call secularism? Well, thankfully, in our country and many around the world we are allowed the freedoms to live our lives as we see fit as long as they don’t infringe on the rights and liberties of others. So, if someone chooses to live outside the bounds of religious or natural laws, they certainly should be allowed to, as long as they are minding their own business. This concept of allowing homosexuality was highly contested up until the late 20th century, and is still somewhat contested today in 2020. The original founders felt that upholding moral and ethical truths in our school systems were an integral part of maintaining our precious union. As a matter of fact, the often-misrepresented “separation of church and state” clause did not mean that religion could not be learned about in schools, but that the federal government had no right to establish a State religion (capital S). Most of the founders actually encouraged religious teachings and values in schools. The more modern interpretations of the separation of church and state are due to an influx of not only secular ideologies, but also religious beliefs that were not prevalent during the time of our founding. While I am a firm believer that no harm can come from learning about religious values in schools, in this age of progressivism it is reasonable to note that certain contentious religious principles need not be forced upon others. This would be a clear infringement of the separation of church and state.

So, to get specific, let’s talk homosexuality. A common misconception in the eyes of secularists is that the Church (I’ll speak specifically about Catholicism here) preaches that homosexuality is a sin – that simply being gay is a sin against God. Well, this isn’t true. The Church expressly teaches that acting out homosexual fantasies is a sin. Let’s say, you are a man who is attracted to other men, but in your devotion to your religion, you find a woman whom you love, marry her, and live your life without having sex with another man. Is this man sinful, because he finds men attractive? Of course he is not! When you feel like strangling someone, but then you calm down and don’t, are you guilty of murder? No. So, simply being gay is not a sentence to Hell. As a matter of fact, even in the eyes of the Church, acting on your homosexual impulses isn’t a death sentence. There is reconciliation and forgiveness in the eyes of the Lord. If you confess your sin and repent for it, you are seen as forgiven. Not to mention, there are people who sin in every aspect of life: liars, swindlers, thieves, murderers – and I’m not even just talking about big sins. Small sins add up, and if you are not repentant of them, you are not any more likely to get to Heaven. However, I will paraphrase this, but I believe there is a Scripture saying that says you will be judged by your worst qualities. So, if you work hard your whole life to be a good Christian, and your only flaw is that you are a wonton whore, a light will be shown on this most vulnerable area.

You might be thinking to yourself, “but it’s a genetic mutation that causes some people to like members of the same sex. God would not have built natural urges in us if he didn’t want us to act on them.” Well, that’s just ridiculous. We have natural urges and desires that are built into us that we are meant to fight off all the time: anger, greed, and jealousy to name a few. Lust is just one more urge that is built into our nature, and it happens to come in all shapes and sizes. Our animalistic desire is not only to have as much sex as possible, but to have it with as many things as possible. Evidence of this is your dog, if you have one. Dogs will regularly hump humans due to a natural urge they have. Should the dog be doing this? Should humans all of a sudden be accepting of bestiality? Maybe don’t answer that one. Now that I’ve gotten a bit off topic, I’ll try to bring this all back. Yes, acting on your homosexual desires is a sin in many Christian churches. However, your homosexuality does nothing to harm me or my church, and as such, I believe firmly that if you wish you act on those temptations, you should be legally allowed to.

Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual peoples should not be deprived of their right to happiness, which can include uniting themselves in lawful union. That being said, I would like to advocate for an alteration in the name of the union. With the full rights, advantages and privileges of a married male and female couple, I would like to revoke the name “gay marriage” and return to the previously used “civil union” terminology. Marriage is a religious term that has been secularized over decades to include all unions whether inside or outside of a church between a man and a woman. I propose that all unions made outside of the boundaries of a religious ceremony be labeled civil unions, reserving the term marriage to those unions made within the boundaries of a religious ceremony. Civil unions will differ from Marriages in name only as to lay to rest the disagreements of many over this divisive issue. Thus, men and women, women and women, and men and men united solely by a judge will no longer be “married” but “united”. Those churches that allow gay marriages in their communities are by no means precluded from including them or precluded from calling them whatever they wish. However, legally, in the eyes of the state, a same-sex couple “married” in their churches will be viewed as “united” under the law. This is a semantic issue, as opposed to a legal issue. The semantics are clearly important on this issue and have been increasingly becoming more important as time goes on. I may not feel it is right to legally prevent people from enjoying their lives in whatever manners they please, but I do feel it is within my purview to define terms in order to ease tensions.

With regards to the transgender community, I have immense sympathy and respect for your feelings. Feeling like you don’t fit into the gender roles that your biology dictates can be frustrating, confusing and upsetting. I know. During my high school years, I often noted to myself that I had feminine characteristics that I didn’t understand. In some ways, I felt that I didn’t share many of the masculine interests of my friends. However, because I was surrounded by many fine men who were very accepting of my differences, I never felt that I didn’t belong with them. Here is the reality of the situation. Many people are not surrounded by these positive influences, and thereby feel that they need to re-identify themselves in order to fit into their social environments. This is not the case. Acceptance, toleration and understanding are the keys to solving this problem. Our attention with regard to the gender debate should be redirected towards Gender Stereotypes. At one point, I was under the impression that we were heading in the right direction. In a very enlightening high school class, I was challenged to think about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. When I did this, I came up with many gender stereotypes that not only did not describe many of my peers, but also did not describe myself. Instead of concluding that I did not belong to my gender, however, I concluded that the stereotypes were the crux of the inconsistencies. At one point in history, gender roles were necessary for survival – the strong (men) went on the hunt, and the tender (women) cared for the children. They were important distinctions. This is not the case anymore! Over time, as technology and society developed to the point where strict gender roles were no longer necessary, women’s rights and roles in society began to change. This was a good thing and is a testament to how incredible our society has been for the less advantaged. These roles still play a part in our daily lives and still affect who we are, but they do not define us exclusively. Take Apples for example. The stereotype of an Apple is a red, juicy, sweet fruit. However, there are apples that are yellow, juicy and sweet. There are also apples that are green, juicy and tart. Is the yellow apple a mango now? Is the green apple a lime? No, their genetics limit them to the fruitful existence that they are. Nevertheless, biology dictates what type of fruit they are and not their characteristics; their characteristics don’t change the underlying biology.

To solve the issue of gender, some people on the progressive aisle have attempted to remove gender. I instead propose to remove the stereotypes/roles! This of course leads to inconsistencies in the Pride movement as a whole. For example, an exclusively lesbian woman might marry another woman who decides later that she is a man. Is this first woman heterosexual now, or should she be upset and betrayed and break off the marriage? Are you confused yet? This removal of gender is not only confusing to adults, but it’s confusing to children, and for them, it is dangerous. When you pose a child with the option to choose his/her gender identity, they will ask you what the differences are. Your response will undoubtedly be gender stereotypes. You are doing no one any favors by perpetuating these gender roles. The child will treat this as something fun, like a game. However, once you begin to treat it as something serious, the child will begin to treat it seriously. This is what major networks and schools and parents are beginning to do. Once you begin to treat your child as if they are not their biological sex, they will begin to accept that reality, more so to please you than anything else. This could have unimaginable consequences on their sense of self later in life, which could lead to self-esteem issues, learning disabilities, depression or worse. And making life-altering changes to your children i.e. long-term gender therapy, hormone treatments, or surgeries could permanently hurt them mentally and physically.

Conversely, if your little boy tells you one day that he is a girl, tell him, “No, you’re not a girl, you’re a boy. As a boy, you can be whoever you want to be, like whatever you want to like, and all of those characteristics will make you who you are.” If you tell your little boy that, there is an increased likelihood that he will have a more accepting view of others who are different from him, and will have a more positive outlook of himself. You can be a man who loves to sew, wear frilly clothing, and fixes his own car. You can be a woman who lifts weights, works on a construction site, and watches soap operas. They are not mutually exclusive. This also includes those members of our communities that wish to fully engage in their historical gendered roles. Women, who want nothing but to read, write, sew, be homemakers, and do the multitude of other activities that are considered feminine, should not be shamed into thinking that their choices are not valuable, are backwards, or are in anyway damaging to womanhood. Women who have no interest in science should not be shamed into believing that their lives are a waste and that they are giving in to the patriarchal oppression of women. This is not productive. Similarly, this standard applies to men, who should not be shamed into thinking that jobs that only use their hands are not worthy of respect because they do not require a college education. They should not be shamed into the common misconception that men are brutes, only caring about power and control. Men who are not interested in fashion design or cleaning are not uncreative or lazy. All humans have different interests and strengths.

The characteristics we have as human beings are largely taught to us. Generosity is taught, openness is taught. Negative things, as well: greed, sloth – they are learned. Selfishness is a learned characteristic. As a society, we have failed our younger generations. Parents, teachers, the government, and the media have all failed. To teach a child that they are so important that they have the ability to defy nature and choose their gender breeds self-centeredness and pride beyond compare. How selfish of us, how pompous! We are not that important. We are not able to create our own meaning. Our meaning is a gift bestowed upon us by a higher power. Who or what that higher power is, is for each and every man and woman to decide on their own, but a society based on the premise that they determine their own worth is doomed to fail because it is founded on the ideal that the self is the most important entity. This is not to contradict our founding principles concerning the individual. Those principles concern how government should act in relation to its people. The concept of self-importance, to which I’m referring, concerns how individuals view themselves and act in spite of the government.

So, no, I don’t think that Netflix or schools should be teaching students, especially against the wills of their parents, that being a boy when you’re a girl or vice versa is acceptable. We should not be teaching children that biology can just be ignored. If we allowed this aspect of biology to be ignored, other aspects of biology may be ignored in the future (like age!). Nor do I think that sexual preference should be celebrated in public schools. This goes against the separation of church and state in a different manner, because teaching children that their religious observances of sin are incorrect is a direct interference with the practice of a religion. This would be a world where secularism becomes the state religion and that would be no more acceptable than some form of theism. Have no shame for who you are, but don’t put down other peoples’ views to make yourself feel better. Respect should be taught of all our children before they leave the home for school.

Here is my final message. Acceptance of self, love of one another, and understanding of our differences, should reign supreme.

#lgbt #lgbtqia #lgbtq #netflix #religion #marriage #gender #gender stereotypes #gender roles #transgender #same-sex #nature #respect #understanding #acceptance #secularism #civil unions

7 notes · View notes

loxxxlay · 5 years

Note

I’m not Mormon myself but I’ve watched a lot of youtube videos from a former Mormon and if he heard your story, he would probably say they look at you disapprovingly because they disapprove anybody who goes against their teachings. You don’t have to say or do anything to give them that reason so don’t feel intimidated by them. (They’re probably more afraid of you than you are of them 2bh)

hahahhaa fair enough, and they should be afraid of me. i will fight. (i shout at almost everyone who hates me lmao)

honestly i try to give mormons the benefit of the doubt (and i’m sure in other states, the religion is much less intense and balanced). but the way mormons in general have treated me and my family since i’ve been a kid has been absolutely ridiculous yeah.

my neighbor’s children were not allowed to play with me and my brother because we weren’t mormon. my dad in high school was constantly asked which sect he was in because he wasn’t seen at church, and when he said he wasn’t in a sect, his peers either shunned him or tried to trick him into being baptised/attending church. as an adult, i have been aggressively guilt-tripped/debated with to go to church by many people i’ve encountered. other times, when i was ostracized as a kid, i realized after i grew up that it was Mormon-related.

these are not uncommon experiences. in fact, they are probably the silver lining of experiences.

plus there’s the fact that my state voted republican in the last two elections. and also in general, we have one of the highest youth suicide rates in the country :/ and it’s largely because of the way the church handles lgbt+ people and their families (like u literally have to reject your child in order to continue going to church. doesn’t matter if you’re straight or if your child is a teenager. you have to write a letter disowning them basically. note: this might have changed recently but still)

it’s a fucking clusterfuck hereee.

like, i don’t think a lot of people from other states really understand how pervasively the mormon culture has corrupted our government and society in utah. and i live in a blue district. i can’t imagine what it’s like in provo where the BYU college resides :’)

#lox talks personal #sorry for ranting lol #anon #lox replies

4 notes · View notes

aliceviceroy · 5 years

Link

Feb. 5, 2019

“We think of church as a place of healing and transformation, and it is,” says Michael Walrond Jr., pastor of the First Corinthian Baptist Church in Harlem. But for some, he says, “religion has been more bruising and damaging than healing and transformative.”

Pastor Mike, as he is called, leads services in a renovated art deco movie palace on Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Boulevard. Under his direction, the church has taken a lead in confronting an issue that few other religious institutions have tackled: what some call religious trauma syndrome.

You won’t find this condition in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which clinicians use to make their diagnoses. But the term has been gaining currency with psychotherapists, counselors and others who work with people who are recovering from the harmful effects of religious indoctrination.

Some churches “weaponize scripture and religion to do very deep damage on the psyche,” he said. Gay, lesbian and trans people are told that God condemns them, unwed mothers that they are living in sin, and many natural human desires are deemed evil.

Scientific research into the consequences of such religious condemnation remains at an early stage. But the potential for harm is clear. Many suffer for decades from post-traumatic stress disorder-type symptoms, including anxiety, self doubt and feelings of social inadequacy

Marcus Jerry Kaz McNeely, 33, who works in an after school program, came to the Hope Center, a free psychiatric clinic run by the First Corinthian Baptist Church, after leaving a church in the Bronx that prohibited watching TV, going to the movies and wearing jewelry. The leader, who demanded absolute obedience, bullied Mr. McNeely from the pulpit for the slightest infractions.

“I became sick because of stress, depressed and paranoid,” Mr. McNeely said.

Kyndra Frazier, center, directs the Hope Center, a free psychiatric clinic run by First Corinthian Baptist Church where she is a co-pastor.First Corinthian Baptist Church

Kyndra Frazier, a co-pastor of the church who directs the Hope Center, helped Mr. McNeely shed his “religious perfectionism” and “be O.K. with not being O.K.,” as he put it. She also taught him how to meditate and to “spend more quality time with myself,” a luxury that the fundamentalist church he attended had not allowed him.

Pastor Frazier, who struggled with religious condemnation of her sexual orientation as a child growing up in rural North Carolina, tells those who come to her not to blindly believe everything that’s taught from the pulpit or that’s written in the Bible, but to develop their own capacity to discern God’s will for them.

Another congregation that is working with those grappling with religious trauma is the Holy Trinity Community Church in Nashville, with a membership that is over 80 percent L.G.B.T.

Brice Thomas, the lead pastor, says he first grasped religion’s capacity for harm when his father, a Pentecostal faith healer, died of a treatable skin cancer because the church did not believe in going to doctors. After a stint in the military, Mr. Thomas, who is gay, became ordained in the United Church of Christ, one of the first denominations to affirm marriage equality, and took up his duties in Nashville last year. Together with Jennifer Strickland, a licensed therapist, he is setting up a “Recovering from Religious Trauma Syndrome” group at the church.

Pastor Thomas says that releasing feelings of shame and unworthiness takes time and the support of a loving community. He adds, however, that being ostracized by religion can be a blessing in disguise if it pushes one to develop a more authentic personal faith.

“I’m grateful to the religious community that I grew up in because the challenges that they presented have brought me to the place I am today,” he said. “I’m also thankful for my sexual orientation because it has opened me to deeper ways of being in relationship to God.”

Even after people leave religions where they have suffered abuse, they can still harbor the emotional conviction that they are “basically sinful and wrong,” says Marlene Winell, a human development expert who coined the term “religious trauma syndrome” in a series of articles in 2011.

Dr. Winell was raised by missionary parents in Taiwan whose religion, she says, taught her that she was never good enough as a child. She struggled for years “to figure out how to enjoy life,” whose pleasures she had been made to feel guilty about.

Dr. Winell’s group, Journey Free, runs retreats where people suffering from religious trauma share personal stories and engage in nurturing exercises like “the baby wrap,” in which participants are swaddled in a blanket and rocked by the others who read statements like “I love you” and “you are welcome to the world.”

“I call it reparenting,” Dr. Winell says.

Another group that works with victims is the Child-Friendly Faith Project, founded by Janet Heimlich, a journalist who has written about religious child maltreatment. The project has worked with those who say they were traumatized by religious groups, including former attendees of Cal Farley’s Boys Ranch, a Christian boarding school for at-risk children located outside Amarillo, Tex.

Brett Higbee, a retired land surveyor who attended the ranch during the late 1970s, said that he was routinely beaten for religious infractions like failing to memorize Bible verses. These experiences made him religion-phobic for years, he said, his pain triggered by entering a church or even hearing Christmas music on the radio.

The gap between religious teachings on compassion and the ways that faith sometimes gets misused inspired Dr. Harold G. Koenig, a psychiatrist, and his colleagues at Duke University to develop “religious cognitive therapy” in 2014. The therapy uses “positive scriptures that focus on forgiveness, God’s love and divine mercy to challenge the dysfunctional thoughts that maintain trauma,” says Dr. Koenig.

The Duke team has developed workbooks that accentuate this positive content for each of the world’s major religions. Clinical trials, published in 2015, showed that religious people who received the therapy had lower rates of depression and reported more positive emotions like gratitude and optimism than those who did not receive it.

The best cure for religious trauma may be a deeper dive into the spiritual core of religious teachings, Dr. Koenig says.

“Jesus just gave two commandments to the faithful,” he observed, “to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. If people remembered this and allowed it to guide their attitudes and actions, they might stop harming people in the name of religion.”

An earlier version of this article misstated when the United Church of Christ affirmed marriage equality. It was one of the first denominations to do so, but that was in 2005, not over two decades ago.

#religious abuse

1 note · View note

thechekhov · 6 years

Note

ahhhh I have so many questions about living in Japan bc I am seriously considering doing so! could you please tell us some general stuff? or what is the view on homosexuality? on anime fans? are they really frowned upon? how well would I get by speaking only English at first? is vegetarianism common? what about yoga? sorry you don't have to answer all of that pick whatever you like better! ty!!

I applaud your ideals of living in a new place! That’s always an exciting type of goal - and also a very difficult one. Moving to a new apartment is hard enough - moving to a different country is much more so.

Before approaching any of your other questions, I’m gonna play devil’s advocate for a second and ask you - WHY?

Now, I know that this seems a bit rude. You might say “Look, Chekhov, it’s none of your business. I’m trying to ask you a question, that’s all. It’s my decision, after all.”

And you would be right. But let me explain my reasoning.... Ever since I started blogging about my experience in Japan, I’ve started to get MANY of these types of questions. SO MANY. If I had to guess, everyone and their brother wants to live in Japan. And a lot of times... they want to do so because they are informed by only the media and tourism sold to them by Japan - in the form of anime, or manga, or TV.

In other words... they’re misinformed, and they have a very narrow, warped view of the country, and they don’t really understand what they’re getting into.

Now... I’m not judging you - or anyone else. But I want to be as realistic as possible. Because if you’re going to uproot your life and move somewhere across the sea, you need to have as much HONEST and straightforward information as you can before you end up coming here and realising that you didn’t fully prepare yourself.

Still, you’re asking me questions now, so that’s great! It means that you’re seeking out the information and making an effort. That’s a great first step!

Let’s get started.

I would recommend, first and foremost, starting with my ‘#japan’ tag on this tumblr.

I have written lots about different topics - including LGBT discussions - from the perspective of someone who has lived in Japan a few years. Now, that is a disclaimer - a FEW YEARS! ONLY! I am not a Japanese native, I am not someone who has been here for a decade. I have lived here for 4 years, and no more. My point of view is limited, and my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.

The rest of your questions I’m gonna answer very simply, and you can read more on the tag if you want details.

1. Homosexuality in Japan?

Basically, there’s almost no violence towards lgbt community. However, there’s heavy ostracizing and ignoring they exist. Coming out as homosexual might still cost you your job, especially if you work with children. The homophobia and transphobia on national television makes this monster problem fatter. Also be prepared for “What’s ‘gay’?” and “That’s something the foreigners invented. We don’t have ‘gay’ people here.”

2. Anime fans? In Japan? It’s more likely than you think.

I mean, I think this one is a little bit funny (sorry, I swear I’m not laughing at you). Anime is... it’s.... they’re cartoons! They’re cartoons, in Japan. Kids love cartoons no matter what country. Adults who like cartoons also exist in every country. How they’re treated usually depends on how they present themselves. Are you gonna get side-eye for wearing an anime-titties shirt to work? Hell yeah, don’t do that shit. But is someone going to bully you for having, idk, a Fullmetal Alchemist keychain on your backpack?? Hell no. Plenty of people like anime, especially the younger generation.

The key is - there’s a solid difference between liking anime and enjoying it in your freetime, and... idk... not being able to identify the situations in which anime should not be your priority.

3. "Can you speak English?”

Honestly, this one is something I’m gonna put my foot down on - as an immigrant myself, and as an English teacher, I say that.... If you are an immigrant that is WILLINGLY moving into a country, with plans to do so far in advance that you have a few years to prepare... you should study Japanese before you get here. It doesn’t have to be perfect, and it doesn’t have to be a lot. But you should at least do your best to pick up the basics.

If you’re planning to go into a metropolitan area like Tokyo or Osaka, then sure, you can get by with only English. But why should you wait to study the language until you arrive there? There’s plenty of free resources to at least learn the basic alphabet and a few key phrases before you arrive. It’s a giant help when you’re first settling in, and it’s also way more respectful to the people around you. They will also respond more kindly to you, knowing that you’re doing your best to communicate on their terms.

4. “Do you have a vegetarian option?”

“Yes, sure, here’s a salad.“

“This has bacon bits on it...?”

“No, no, dear, that’s only for flavor. No meat.“

"Sorry, but I can’t eat meat.”

“Well, okay, let me get you one with chicken instead.”

Now, are you ready to have this conversation? I hope so, because I guarantee you, this WILL happen at least once. Probably more than once.

Well, I’ll let up. Sure, Japan is slowly coming into the vegetarian-options. However, by and large the vegetarian options are limited. Fish stock is so common that it’s added to everything without marking it as being an animal product.

It’s entirely possible to live as a happy vegetarian. I know many people that do! But I guarantee you it will be 200% harder if you don’t speak Japanese and can’t read food labels.

5. Yo.... ga?

Err, I’m not sure I get this one, actually. Like, is yoga popular? Is there a yoga studio? Sure, probably? Somewhere? I’m a bit lost on this one. I’m gonna say ‘yes, yoga.’

Some other points to consider:

Where do you want to live. In a big city like Tokyo? Prices are high, and apartments are tiny. Are you sure you can afford it? Often, getting an apartment involves paying something called Key Money AND a deposit. A deposit is one of your rent month’s worth of money. Key money is TWICE the amount of one month’s rent, and you don’t get it back. It’s just a gift to the person you’re renting from. Also, I don’t want to be even more depressing but many lenders don’t want to deal with foreigners and won’t rent to them as a rule unless they bring along a Japanese friend to translate for them. Sometimes not even then.

What job will you be supporting yourself with? If you’re limited to jobs that don’t need a knowledge of Japanese, this will definitely be harder. Many of the jobs that will take you on despite no Japanese knowledge are limited to ‘English teacher‘ positions. Can you teach English? Do you like kids?

Most of Japan isn’t like Tokyo. There’s a lot of countryside - where people speak even less English, and there’s no nearby shopping malls, and only one train station to take you out to a big city - that’s an hour away.

Sorry, I know this is kinda harsh and very negative. But moving to a different country isn’t something to be taken lightly, and you need to be realistic about your goals if you’re going to be aiming high.

If you want some alternatives, I would recommend checking out the JET Program. It’s a government funded Teach-English-In-Japan type deal that is very supportive with participants and helps them get living situations set up and gets them jobs. It’s probably the easiest way to get into Japan.... but it also requires you to become a teacher. It’s not a fun touristy trip. It’s also highly selective, and the application process takes about a year.

Either way, hope I wasn’t too discouraging! Good luck!

#living in japan #japan #so you want to live in japan #Anonymous

190 notes · View notes

free-essays · 6 years

Text

AP English III - Essay

Sex, Stigma, and Students

This society is surrounded by myths about sex, and about people’s very own bodies. From girls who start menstruating at 9 and boys growing facial hair at 10. to the teens and adults who do not know the ins and outs of birth control; every person deserves to know vital information about their body. Sex education needs to be built upon, enriched, and improved for three reasons: there are far too many harmful myths about sex, people who do not conform to heterosexual standards are left in the dust, and non-abstinence programs have been shown to be more effective.

Sex education, how detailed and at what age, has always been a hot topic. Where did it all begin? Support for this movement started in the 1800s, emphasizing upon risk-reductive habits to help prevent cholera and syphilis. Groups hopped on this bandwagon, making it necessary in the national curriculum before puberty. The trend continued into the 1900s when the first birth control clinic was opened, and even more groups joined the league of sex education: such as the U.S Public Health Service, U.S government, American Medical Association, and so forth. The Birth Control Federation became Planned Parenthood in 1942, and there was a nationwide program in family life education. Despite these movements in favor of ‘sex ed’, in 1975, 20 states voted to restrict or abolish sexuality education. In the 80’s an act to start promoting abstinence before marriage was passed. Abstinence has always been a huge portion of teaching, even today, although in 2008 a total of 25 states has rejected funding for abstinence-only programs (Advocatesforyouth.org).

The first reason that sex education needs to be empowered rather than overlooked is that this first world society is littered with harmful myths about sex, and about the body. Just to name a few, a female’s first time is not supposed to hurt, hymens do not really tear so there should be no blood. The only time any of that happens is likely when the female is not actually aroused and this myth of “cherry popping” adds onto the trope of men’s needs coming first; especially in a sexual environment. There are also many people who believe, or likely were not taught otherwise, that oral sex cannot get a person pregnant, and this can lead some people to believe the best way to be safe is to actually throw up after sex (Newsome). Many people also think that porn is an activity only the male population partakes in, yet a study found that one out of three women watches it at least once a week (WITW). Many females feel ostracized and immoral for doing taking part in an activity that most people of both genders do, and it should be normalized instead of being laced with current double standards. Another extremely common misbelief is that to be amazing at sex, a man must have a penis length far above average, and often this causes insecurity among the males with this body part; along with stress and anxiety if they are average, below average, or not a whopping 12 inches. Aesthetics aside, four to five inches does what it needs to in sex, considering a female’s actual vaginal length is only four to five inches when aroused. The list goes on and on; there are countless myths about sex that continue to stigmatize most of the population, and really just instill shame in exploring teenagers. A school’s sex ed needs to debunk these common, but wrong beliefs with dignity and understanding.

According to a National Health Survey, around, “2.3 percent of US citizens identify as gay or bisexual” (Somashekhar). That might seem a touch small when it is taken into account that less than 50 percent of teens today identify as heterosexual (Brathwaite). Considering only half of the middle schoolers and high schoolers today say they are straight, we need to start addressing sexuality in sexual education classes. An innumerable amount of coming-out stories involve the words, “I thought I was broken,” or “I thought something was wrong with me”. That should never be the case; that a teen goes through schooling thinking that he or she is alone, broken, too young to make these decisions. It is simple, whether or not all of the public supports the LGBT+ group, different genders and sexualities do exist and the youth should not suffer because of this. Explaining early that people can identify differently and love anyone they want would save so many people large amounts of heartbreak and confusion as a teenager. Even if schools only had to cover the basics: being gay, bisexual, straight, or asexual. Asexuality is one that is often brushed off, considered to be some sort false identity made up for purposes like attention. In fact, most people do not even know that it exists, but regardless it does and there are in fact people who do not feel sexual attraction. Sex Ed needs to reassure those students that abstinence is okay, having sex is okay, but also just not feeling sexual attraction is okay. Heteronormative teachings leave several groups of teens in the dust, feeling outcast.

Not only is sex education supposed to be there to teach us that differences are to be embraced and to debunk myths, it also should not be abstinence-only based, and there are more than enough statistics to prove it. National data shows that more comprehensive sex education teaching is actually more effective at lowering teen pregnancy than only teaching abstinence. This makes sense; that if teens are going to have sex, then they’re going to do so no matter how many times a burly gym teacher says, “abstinence is the only way you can be TOTALLY safe!”, but if teens are taught how to have sex responsibly, then it is safer for all parties involved. In fact, “47 percent of high school teens have reported being sexually active in 2013” (Mcgee). That is half of high school students, so no one can say that it is not important enough. Teaching abstinence only is like saying “You want to learn how to be a safer swimmer? Just don’t swim!” This mentality is not beneficial to teens, and the data proves this. Regardless of whether the students would rather stay abstinent or not, the fact is that the teachings associated with it are often twisted and misleading, “Representative Henry A. Waxman released a report showing that over 80 percent of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs use curricula that distort information about the effectiveness of contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, treat stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact, and contain basic scientific errors”(“Top Five Reasons”). Even if not having sex until marriage is the path some want to take, it should be because they have been well educated in an unbiased and truthful way. This is further backed by the fact that only 19 states actually call for teaching that is medically accurate (Karimi). Less than half of this country’s teens could be getting properly informed about their bodies, and how to protect them. Looking at the map below, it highlights just how skewed this abstinence-based system is. In these states, they assume that telling the students not to have sex will be enough, without a single lesson on any sort of birth control methods. (Klein) It is obvious that relying only on the teachings of abstinence is not only irresponsible, but it works only based on a select few moral beliefs. In fact, the data of the passage written by Karimi says that “comprehensive learning was 50 percent more effective than teaching abstinence.” That is no coincidence.

One main point that opposers usually throw out is that “Kids and teens are too young!” Usually, they think that until a student is in high school or late middle school can they be exposed to the mature concepts involving their own body. They also generally believe that sexual discussions in detail are too inappropriate for preteens and teenagers. Along with and often fueled by these morals comes common misconceptions on how sex education would be handled in a younger environment, which is shown in “Start Proper Sex Education Early”: with parents assuming that it would start in kindergarten, and expose their children to porn, and teach them how to masturbate. In the same article, more parents have called early sex ed “disgusting” and that “[sex ed] rapes their children of innocence”. In teaching sex early, it would likely be taught in simple terms; certainly nothing that would be inappropriate to show at any age of audience. Even so, when is it ‘too young’ to learn about the bodily functions that start anywhere from nine to 14? Sex should be talked about openly, rather than made oppressive and taboo. Many girls get embarrassed and shamed for talking about their periods, but why? It is a natural bodily occurrence that should be embraced with a person’s femininity. Males should be exposed and well-versed in this too, considering it affects half the human population every month. Many teens do not come to their parents with questions and concerns because they wait too long to have a real, honest discussion with them about sex (if ever at all). Parent’s should start early and are open with their children about the most necessary function of survival of humans, sex, and the important themes within that such as menstruation, it would leave less room for this shame to talk about it.

Another huge argument on the other side is that topics like sex are material that parents need to teach their children themselves. This is an educational step that some parents think is personal, and they do not want their children learning information that they do not think that they should. A parent, though their intentions could be morally right, can often be biased; and they should not get to decide what is and is not relevant for their child. That is not to say that a parent cannot be the first to teach their kid; if they start having these discussions earlier, as stated in the refutation above, then they would get to have that personal conversation with their child regardless. Another reason why it should not just be left to the parents to teach is that just like most people are lost in these sexual myths, often adults and even said parents are too. They can be, and probably are, just as easily misled as anyone else, so who knows if what they are teaching their kids is even correct? Although in some states teachers can be just as choosy with what they teach as parents, it is at least done in a more open and stress-free environment. Often teens feel embarrassed to ask their parents questions, and sweat over the dreaded “sex talk”, but in a classroom with peers that are in that same boat; there are much less pressure and shame. Anyone of any age can be biased, easily swayed, or uneducated in some fields of knowledge, and even more likely the parents, thinking they know best for their children. Considering that simple understanding; unless they are a doctor, or so well knowledged that they could write a textbook on sexual education, it is probably best left to the teachers to educate the masses on how to stay safe sexually.

Although sex education has come far, there is still so much on the horizon that the necessary teachings should strive for. Sex education should be expanded upon, and well refined. Students should be corrected about toxic myths, should be taught about differences in sexuality, and should be taught more than just, “you can have safe sex by not having any at all”. Once people start being open about sex, is the moment that many of the stigmas and confusion plaguing it can be eliminated.

Works Cited

"A SELECTIVE HISTORY OF SEXUALITY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES."

Advocatesforyouth.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.

Brathwaite, Les Fabian. "Less Than 50% of Teens Identify as Straight, Says New Study." Out

Magazine. N.p., 11 Mar. 2016. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.

Castner, Nick. "Start Proper Sex Education Early." University Wire, 12 Jan 2016, SIRS Issues

Researcher, http://sks.sirs.com.

Karimi, Honeiah. “We Need to Talk about Sex.” University Wire, 2014. SIRS Issues

Researcher, http://sks.sirs.com"

Klein, Rebecca. "These Maps Show Where Kids In America Get Terrifying Sex Ed." The

Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 8 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Jan. 2017.

McGee, Brice. “Teaching Abstinence Only is Not Working.” University Wire, 26 Aug 2015, SIRS

Issues Researcher, http://sks.sirs.com

"National Data Shows Comprehensive Sex Education Better at Reducing Teen Pregnancy than

Abstinence-Only Programs." SIECUS. SIECUS, Mar. 2008. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.

Newsome, Teresa. "7 Totally Gross Sex Myths Debunked Once And For All." Bustle. Bustle, 08

Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.

Somashekhar, Sandhya. "Health Survey Gives Government Its First Large-scale Data on Gay,

Bisexual Population." The Washington Post. WP Company, 15 July 2014. Web. 17 Jan.

2017.

"Top Five Reasons to Abandon Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs."

Advocatesforyouth.org. Advocates For Youth, n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.

WITW, Staff. "Study Finds That 1 out of 3 Women Watch Porn at Least Once a Week."

NYTLive. New York Times, 22 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Jan. 2017.

#english iii #ap english #english #essay

2 notes · View notes

nicemango-feed · 7 years

Text

Forbidden Intersectionality: Liberal + (Ex) Muslim

Some of you may have seen my interview on Cracked recently. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak on a larger platform. Below is a blogpost thats basically an extension of my thoughts from there: ------- Being of Muslim background in the West right now...in this Trumpian, 'rising far right' era is tough enough as it is....but being a secular, non-religious person of Muslim background is a whole other level of fucked up at the moment... So many of us thought there weren't others like us, questioning Islam, questioning conservatism in our communities...because these things just aren't talked about. The risks are too great especially if you're living in a Muslim majority country like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (the two places I've lived). And when, through the internet, we found each other....us secular/agnostic/atheist types of Muslim background were just so relieved that there were others...that there was a growing voice for us...that we banded together on something that doesn't tell you much about a person's values: rejecting/challenging religion. Now...as the political climate changes in the West, we see the cracks in the ex/reformist Muslim movement more obviously than ever. There are those of us who were coming at it from the angle of opposing conservatism, rightwingery whatever form it may take, and others who were specifically only opposing Islam. As a result the people who prioritize opposing Islam alone, are happy now to side with the Western right. Some even going as far as joining anti-Muslim movements, the alt-right, supporting Trump, etc. Back in the old country, expressing doubt about religion or challenging cultural boundaries can mean serious consequences. At the very least resulting in alienation and being ostracized, disowned, ex communicated (we are not free from this consequence in the West either) ....and at worst it means things like blasphemy accusations, death. So I do understand where the anger and bitterness some have is coming from (I don't excuse it, but I can see what created it). This taboo and loneliness surrounding Islamic apostasy is also why finding others simply to align with you on this one thing feels so big, that almost nothing else matters.

However, as more and more of us come out and express ourselves, we begin to see the diversity among Islam's apostates too. Still we are often lumped in as one, and even at times put on an unnecessary pedestal in the western atheist scene when discussing Islam. I hate to be the one to say it, but ex-Muslims can be wrong in their assessments and opinions of Islam too, like anyone else. And if they are allying with the Dave Rubin's and Kekistanis of this world then it's increasingly important to see beyond the 'ex Muslim = they're infallible when it comes to speaking about Islam' view. Ex-Muslims too can overshoot in their criticism or overreact, tainting a movement that began with thoughtful critique.

Yes the stigma and risks that come with apostasy in Islam are high and frightening. I'm a living example of how high the stakes are, I have to work under a pseudonym to feel safe. But at the same time, it's important to keep in mind that things aren't always that intolerant and there are all types of people in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too, people who are struggling to be heard - further silencing them with generalizations is not only unjust but also counterproductive if reducing extremism is the goal. Liberal, accepting-of-apostasy Muslim families do exist there, but sadly in small numbers. It is voices from those minorities that need to be empowered...but so rarely are. Instead, the narrative that Muslims are always conservative rules the airwaves in the West, be it left or right leaning media. Yes...there are crazy mullahs saying ridiculous, vile, intolerant things (often focused on by the right) ....and yes there are hijabi women who need our solidarity (often focused on by the left), but Muslim existence isn't limited to these simple caricatures - yet most representation of them is (and no, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between vile intolerant mullahs and peaceful conservative Muslim women who wear a headscarf). It's been incredibly hard to break that mould...and the few instances of people trying to represent the more secular, liberal types of Muslim existence are met with a huge amount of resistance from all across the political spectrum. I mean....we already have so much to deal with from within the community, that tacking on these external battles, simply for a foothold... for a place to say "I'm here, and I exist"...are disheartening and exhausting. As if dealing with angry Mullah’s against fun and freedom wasn’t hard enough! Image from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7IpMIhR6Yg

The left, the right, Muslims and non Muslims too, can all be hurdles for secular, liberal and progressive Muslims.

This is so incredibly untrue, as secular, liberal portrayals of Muslims are onlyjust starting to break through into the mainstream. While we have a wholehost of characters that play the token religious character, or 'the terrorist', etc.

There's really no winning as a 'secular Muslim'.

People want to shove you into a box with extremists and nothing will stop them.

"Why don't Muslims tolerate apostasy, it's outrageous!" - well here's a Muslim woman

expressing support for people who have left the faith, and this is what she has to hear.

Why Don't Muslims fight for LGBT rights? Some do. And when it's not the western far right trying to get them to adhere to a literalist interpretation of Islam, it's a Muslim right-winger who wants to drag them back.

Muslims lie. There you have it. Because lying is totally unique to Muslims.

There really is no winning. As a liberal+Muslim, someone always turns up

to either discredit that you're truly liberal or that you're truly Muslim.

And thus, 'Forbidden intersectionality'.

---------

As an ex-Muslim, I still very much consider myself a part of the Muslim community - like any secular Jew or Christian would consider themselves connected through culture, shared history, family, holidays, etc. Never before has my need to identify and stand in solidarity with the Muslim community felt more pronounced, than in a time Muslim registries and Muslim bans are casually being spoken of in mainstream discourse.

This is truly terrifying for anyone of Muslim background.

When it comes to things like the registry or being barred from entering the US, I don’t think secular, non-believer status matters. And when it comes to hate crimes, I'm pretty sure no one will bother checking how devout you are, either.

In fact, there have been many victims of anti-Muslim hate crime that just happened to have brown skin, or weren’t even remotely Muslim.

All this certainly complicates things for those of us from within who do have legitimate critiques of the community and of Islamic fundamentalism. How do we demand progress in a political climate rife with anti-Muslim sentiment?

Battling Homophobia in a Muslim context

The orthodoxy Islam still commands worldwide in its adherents is unmatched by most other mainstream religions in the 21st century. For example the countries that still carry a potential death penalty for homosexuality are largely Muslim.

Three years ago I wrote and illustrated an anti-homophobia children’s book set in Pakistan, called My Chacha (uncle) is Gay (you can get a copy here).

As I mentioned in my Cracked interview,

"I was delighted when it got picked up by some schools in the Toronto area and was used as a resource for The Day of Pink (which is an anti bullying initiative)."

The book was read out in classrooms and assemblies, and the response was incredibly supportive at first. Then, as parents 'discovered' that not only were their children read an LGBT-positive book *gasssp* ...but were read one set in Pakistan, the outrage began.

Many claimed it was an assault on their religion, and a misrepresentation of it. Some said I was attacking the moral fibre of the ‘Muslim family', I received countless death and rape threats. Some referred to me as Wajb ul Qatal - 'worthy of killing’, they wished STD’s and Sharia punishments of being 'stoned to death' upon my *fictional* character Chacha.

This went on for quite some time.

The most amusing comments called me 'Satan’s daughter' or compared my children's book's evilness -evels to that of Salman Rushdie’s notorious Satanic Verses! I am not worthy, but I’ll take the compliment with pride. In Toronto a radio show broadcasted calls from angry parents, punctuated with a few obligatory calls from people defending the book. Some parents threatened to sue the school board, and predictably the LGBT supporting liberal school board backed away from such a book. It was never used in an official capacity again. There were warnings being circulated on Islamic sites that people should protect their children from corruption, as they too could be exposed to this gay-turning, soul-sucking 15 line picture book.

As I said on Cracked, "Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) published a blog post claiming that the school board was the one bullying parents into teaching their kids about LGBT diversity. I was branded an ‘Islamophobe’ and that was it - a resource that many children/teachers enjoyed and found useful was no longer available." When Muslim communities have problems with integration or accepting values like being LGBT positive, the way to tackle that would be precisely through such resources. But often in the face of accusations of Islamophobia even books about love and tolerance are tossed out as controversial. It's the kids who lose out the most. Just recently, a conservative Islamic lecturer discovered my book and posted about it's 'evil agenda', sending a fresh new batch of threats and haters my way.

Click to enlarge

On the other side of this battle right wing non-Muslims accused me of trying to ‘sanitize homophobia’ in Islam and said that nice gay uncles like this simply didn’t exist in Pakistan, that I was painting a rosy picture of what it was like to be gay in a Muslim country, that Chacha would have been stoned to death in reality. I mean…it was a fictional children’s book, thus obviously simplified to a great degree. It's incredibly frustrating that If ever people from the Muslim world are challenging things and pushing boundaries the Western right often wants to pull them back to standards that Islamists would be proud of.

For one side I was an Islamophobe, for the other a sanitizer of Sharia. And that pretty much encapsulates what it's like to discuss Islam as a liberal (ex) Muslim nowadays, caught between a rock and a hard place.

It's like walking a tightrope...you point out there's homophobia in Muslim culture and you risk that being grabbed and used by people who want to ban Muslims.

What do you do, when stuck at this impossible junction... Being liberal and Muslim is unacceptable...invisible even.

Image from Cracked.com

It simply doesn't fit the narrative - but being liberal and ex muslim is also an overlap that many days, seems unmaintainable.

Often, you are not accepted by fellow liberals in the west (because Islamophobic) or you're not accepted by those who are interested in critiques of Islam because those circles are increasingly becoming anti-sjw, anti-feminist, anti-left...

Having few and mild opinions about the Western far-right is appreciated by many in the audience that will inevitably be drawn to you for your criticism of Islam. They usually tell you to stfu about Trump ...and accuse you of Taqqiya (an obscure concept in Islam which I only heard about in the West) if you don't, because they want to get to the 'good stuff'...the part where you confirm their ideas about generalizing Muslim immigrants, and act as a shield from accusations of bigotry.

My small patreon $ goes up when i criticize islam and goes down when I don't. This is an incredibly depressing view.

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) September 6, 2017

We-ell thats not gonna happen with me....and I can't seem to keep quiet about Dave Rubin and Gad Saad, Peterson, Shermer...I certainly won't be going on Breitbart or Rebel Media to talk about how there's no place for Islam on the planet. So.....that leaves me walking a rather lonely path....and as you can read in my tweet above, often has me wondering what my place is in all this. If it's even worth it to try and counter the avalanche of bs, that seems to be coming from within the ex-Muslim movement...bs like, 'Islam can't be reformed', 'there's no place for it on the planet', 'Islam is worse than Nazism.' I mean, at this point the discussion really seems to have left the grown up table.

The Term Islamophobia Adds to the Confusion The waters are so muddied, that the term really does more harm than good. Allowing any criticism of Islamic fundamentalism, homophobia, etc. to be labelled as 'Islamophobia', gives right wing fundamentalist Muslims a chance to shield the religion from valid criticism. It's essentially the same thing as right wing Christians trying to shield their religion from criticism. Think of the absurdity of the 'War on Christmas' to get a feel for how 'Islamophobia' sounds to us. That's why I prefer the more precise term, 'anti-Muslim bigotry'. The problem is not theological criticisms of Islam or criticisms of literalist interpretations, it is the generalizations, hatred and fear-mongering around Muslims. Seeing the confusion surrounding this, the Western far-right swoops in to claim that "Islamophobia" isn't real even when its being used to describe blatant anti-Muslim bigotry. The cries of "Islam is not a race", while technically true...ring hollow in a climate where brown people are targeted based on their skin colour and appearance. And thus the cycle of confusion continues.

As anti-muslim sentiment skyrockets, the emboldened far-right uses this opportunity to gain more support. As the Western far right lashes out at Muslims, the Muslim far-right uses that opportunity to also gain more support. And the rest of us, are well and truly fucked by them both. The Hijab Debate

The Hijab is a hot topic, both within Muslim circles and outside. Well-meaning Western liberals tend to overcompensate in their desire to make Muslims feel accepted and can end up championing conservatism from our communities. This is particularly tricky now, because Muslim women are in actuality being attacked for their modesty garments. So in the West, it's not exactly on the same footing as opposing something like a Christian purity ball or virginity pledge - though it largely comes from the same place and regard for women. As a woman who grew up in a theocracy, Saudi Arabia, I was forced to wear modesty garments by the state and have encountered "morality police" on several occasions. I have seen them hit my mother's ankle with a cane for letting her headscarf slip. The memories are not pleasant. So...for me, it's rather distasteful to see the constant celebration of modesty garb. It leaves me feeling very isolated from my fellow liberals, who I assumed would stand with me in opposing body-shaming of women in my culture too. Simultaneously, I can understand that it has become hard to oppose a garment that is causing women to be targeted. My personal solution to this is that I stand in solidarity with hijab and niqab wearing Muslims when it comes to bigots singling them out because they are visibly Muslim. But I still vehemently oppose the concept of a requirement for women to cover up so as not to invoke lust. Both things can and should be done together. One can show solidarity with hijabis without championing the hijab as some great symbol of liberation, which it clearly isn't, as many Muslim girls and women continue to be forced into modesty against their will. The Media gives little coverage to Muslims who don't 'Look like Muslims' There is so much noise around supporting the hijab that non hijabi Muslim women are drowned out. This results in a very one dimensional coverage, that yet again perpetuates the stereotype that 'Muslim' is synonymous with 'conservative Muslim'. Even Playboy Magazine isn't immune to this and had to get in on the hijab celebration! Another example of this misguided support is the Shepard Fairey poster from the Women's March.

An admittedly powerful, iconic poster of a woman in a US flag hijab was displayed as part of a series. It was seen as a symbol of resistance, as the 'anti-Trump'. But it's hard for women like me to get behind one form of conservative symbolism to oppose another form of conservatism. So I created some artwork accompanied by a short audio message explaining that we do indeed need to show solidarity with hijabi Muslim women, but perhaps this wasn't the best method since there are many connotations to such a garment, not all positive.

Despite my clearly liberal sentiments and disclaimers that it was not to be used by people spreading hate towards Muslims, despite my opposition to Trump expressed in the audio message the post was widely retweeted by Trump fan accounts as well.

It seems there's almost nothing we can do to prevent this.

Either you suffer in silence under the homophobic, misogynistic Islamic far-right, or you risk emboldening the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant Western one.

In fact both LGBT and women's rights in Islamic countries are causes appropriated by the Western far-right now. In Alt-Right/Lite circles, you'll see gay rights used as a white nationalist tactic, it's deeply concerning and sinister that an ideology so troubling can be dressed up as 'human rights'.

They use these things as a cudgel, a mere pretext to bash Muslims with.

The trick is to express a faux-concern over these things not being up to par in the Islamic world, while having little regard for the same in your own part of the world. I cannot tell you how many Western anti-feminists champion women's rights when it comes to Islam, but will callously tell Western rape victims that they are privileged because at least they don't live under Sharia.

Difficult Dualities

Whether it's accusations of Islamophobia or fears of emboldening anti-Muslim hate, either way, we are silenced. Just like any culture we too should be able to criticize our own, without being branded sell-outs, traitors or Islamophobes.

Except there is one problem.

In this complex political climate there *is* an actual loss of credibility too, which I covered in my interview;

"As more and more Muslim Reformers/Ex Muslims either get on the Trump Train, defend the Muslim Ban or join the Alt Right."

And on the left, secular, liberal Muslims continue to not be adequately represented. This tips the scales massively towards high-visibility of right-wing critics of Islam.

Well known Ex-Muslim Breitbart Editor, Raheem Kassam, has said things like "If Merkel took a million rapey migrants, Hillary will take 20 million"

We also have the 'red-pilled' ex-Muslim types, who believe no Muslims are peaceful.

Now I as an ex-Muslim can tell you, that this is not representative of *all* ex-Muslims obviously, and there are many compassionate, progressive people among us. But the movement has taken an undeniable rightward turn without many denouncing the bad actors that are nudging the movement further towards Pepe.

This is definitely not what I signed up for.

YouTube shows that regularly feature alt right/lite figures will also court ex and reformist Muslims to come and criticize Islam from their platforms.

When you go on Breitbart, or Rebel Media to criticize Islam - how can you complain that the Left won't take your voice seriously.

Credibility is a two way street.

I would urge my fellow liberals to not champion Islamic conservatism and I would urge my fellow ex-Muslims to not prove critics of the ex-Muslim and Islamic reform movements correct by allying with the Western right and supporting/downplaying things like the Muslim Ban.

This rightward shift of Islam critics has even produced a Trump-supporting, anti-multiculturalism Imam, would you believe it?

2017, what a year!

The Imam once put out an 11-step plan to crack down on Wahhabism, a literalist and harsh interpretation of Islam. It sounds reasonable in theory, but reads more like an authoritarian plan to put ordinary Muslims under strict surveillance. Australian media has dubbed him the 'Fake Sheikh'

ABC states,

"...Unsurprisingly, Tawhidi's tales about Sunni Muslims' shadowy plot to instate Caliphate have been enthusiastically embraced by the far-Right, including Reclaim Australia. Perhaps less expected is the extent to which Tawhidi himself has courted such groups. In the lead-up to last year's federal election, he made offerings of roses to roadside anti-Muslim Liberty Alliance and One Nation posters, as if the face of Pauline Hanson belonged not to Australia's most recognisable anti-Islam campaigner, but a titian-haired deity."

He throws around terms like 'Fake News' and 'Lying Left' - reminiscent of Trump himself.

It's no surprise the term 'red-pilled Muslim' is also seen in comments from his fans. I honestly never thought I'd see that combination of words, but 2017 is full of surprises.

I hope that one day, just like Sam Bee or The Daily Show, progressive Muslims can earnestly push for change without getting lumped in with or enticed by those with an anti-Muslim agenda.

Islam is not a monolith, neither are its adherents nor its critics. Just like Islam can be interpreted and practised in a million different ways so too can criticism of it come from different angles and politics. It's important to be aware of the general Trump-era anti-Muslim climate, but its also important not to erase the few secular, liberal and progressive Muslims that exist.

Recognize that people in my position are fighting a battle against bigotry from all angles.

------------ A huge thanks to all my Patrons who make this work possible! To those who's support for me doesn't depend upon how much I criticize Islam and Islam alone, those who signed up recently, and to those who have been there for a while....your support and encouragement mean so much! If you enjoy my work please consider supporting via Patreon

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2w8YDI4 via IFTTT

0 notes

mergguest · 7 years

Text

Post Election 2016

Post Election 2016 – What Do We Do Now?

A sermon by Meredith Guest

Delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Petaluma on December 11, 2016

Luke 6:27-36

If the recent election of Donald Trump was anything, it was a slap in the face to every progressive, liberal minded American. And make no mistake, it was an intentional slap in the face; that was a great part of the man’s appeal to those who voted for him. And so we, like the cast of “Hamilton,” the diverse Americas who are alarmed and anxious that [this] new administration will not protect the hard-won rights of the last 50 years have been intentionally slapped upside the head with a 2x4 branded with the name of Trump. With our ears still ringing, our eyes still smarting, our values run down like so much road kill, what do we do now?

In the passage from Luke I just read, Jesus says, if someone slaps you upside the head, you are to willingly offer up the other side for equal treatment. But like so much of the Bible – most of it, actually – this isn’t to be taken literally. What he means is: you are to be the one where the violence stops; that’s why you turn the other cheek. What I have to decide now is: Will I be the person who chooses to let the violence stop with me? And what you have to decide is: Will you be the one who willingly and freely chooses to have the violence stop with you.

It goes without saying, this is not our default setting. When slapped upside the head, we are programmed to fight or flight, and unless you plan to leave the country, there’s really nowhere to run; this guy is president. But I must remind you that fight or flight is also the default setting of a gerbil, and if being human means anything, surely it means we are not limited to the default setting of gerbils. It’s one thing to hold to the principles of Unitarian Universalism when YOUR guy holds the reins of power, but what about when evil is at the gate? What do we do then?

1. For one, start looking for ways to make peace.

Mark Lilla in the NYT writes: “But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life.” (Mark Lilla, NYT, 11/18/16) The only remaining slur acceptable in polite company is “redneck;” and if children are not present, it is often accompanied by an expletive.

The poet Adrienne Rich has said, “When someone with the authority of a teacher describes the world and you are not in it, there is a moment of psychic disequilibrium, as if you looked into a mirror and saw nothing.” This quote used to apply to me and to others in the LGBT community. But not anymore. Now our faces are everywhere you look, while the faces of working class Americans, those faces that used to be THE face of America, are disappearing, rendering them anonymous and their lives invisible.

I once had a child in my class with severe cerebral palsy. She was my student in 4th, 5th and 6th grades. Her name was Johanna and she was a wonderful student. One summer just before the beginning of school, Johanna’s mother recommended I meet with an occupational therapist that they had been seeing. I agreed, and in our meeting he asked me to describe the classroom and Johanna’s place in it. After I did so, he looked at me and said, “This child’s not a member of your classroom. She’s little more than a fixture. No meaningful interaction happens between her and the other members of the class…” This was a “take no prisoners” kind of guy, but I took his words to heart and came up with a plan. I cleared it with the mother and soon after school began, the class did a group challenge. Privately I gave Johanna information that the class had to get from her without the assistance of her aid or any other adult. Only when they got this information would they be allowed to go to recess. It wasn’t easy, but they got the information, went to recess and after we did a few similar things, pretty soon I saw students interacting with her in ways they never had before.

It seems to me we, as a nation, have a similar group challenge. While the well educated, well connected and well endowed have enjoyed the fruits of the modern economy, Donald Trump has sounded a take-no-prisoners wake-up call for those with ears to hear and eyes to see that a whole group of others have been left behind. While technically part of the country, they are like the handicapped kid in the wheelchair who nobody ever talks to and everybody tries to ignore. But in this case, a lot more than recess is at stake.

One of my sources for this talk is the book Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe Bageant. I’ve also drawn from interviews with J.D. Vance as well as his book Hillbilly Elegy. I have read both, and I highly recommend Deer Hunting with Jesus. Bageant grew up in a small town in Virginia. After high school he went off to college, became a successful journalist and lived for many years in New York City. When talking to his many liberal friends, he would often be asked why rural southerners so often voted in ways that were contrary to their self interests. Finally, toward the end of his career, he moved back to his hometown and set about trying to answer that question. Deer Hunting With Jesus is the result.

When Bageant interviews his old classmates, one of the things he discovers is that none of them knows a liberal. Their own thoughts, their own views and opinions are constantly being reflected back to them and little or nothing to the contrary has a chance to get through. Their lives and the milieu in which they live are insular.

But that’s not just true of conservatives.

During the election I saw a FB post in which a person demanded, “Anyone voting for Trump, please unfriend me.” Pretty soon, we’ll all be living inside intellectual and ideological gated communities where the only people we talk to and hear from are those who think like us.

One of the best things about being a financial failure as an author is that economic necessity forced me out into the world. Had I been successful, I would have sequestered my big old queer self in my cozy little study and spent my days happily writing lies. As it is, I have to work, and so, at least 3 days a week, I substitute teach in schools all over Petaluma from grades 3-12. As a result, hundreds of children get to rub shoulders with a real, live, breathing transsexual who, unlike the ones they see in the media, is not rich, famous or sexy. And whenever I can, I make it a point to interact with the kids in their Mossy Oak camo sweatshirts, because I am likely to be the only transsexual person they ever get a chance to be around, and I want them to know I think they matter, and that I care about them. They don’t always warm up to me. They certainly don’t all like me. They can be cruel. But this is what I can do. I can reach across the divide and offer myself in friendship.

And so can you, but to do that we’ll all have to:

- Stop having a litmus test for who is and who is not worthy of conversation. We need to be talking with racists. In the Nov. 26 issue of the NYT, there is an op/ed piece entitled “Why I Left White Nationalism” by Derek Black. Mr. Black grew up in a white nationalist family — David Duke was his godfather, and his father started Stormfront, the first major white nationalist website — and he was once considered the bright future of the movement. What changed him is – and I will let him speak for himself – “ I began attending a liberal college where my presence prompted huge controversy. Through many talks with devoted and diverse people there — people who chose to invite me into their dorms and conversations rather than ostracize me — I began to realize the damage I had done. Ever since, I have been trying to make up for it.

- We need to stop policing speech like English teachers police grammar. It just shuts people down.

- We are going to have to engage in forbidden conversations, e.g. immigration, abortion, gun rights, religion. And when we engage in these conversations, we must do unto others as we would have them do unto us; which is to say: listen, be curious, be open to their side of the issue, and be prepared to alter or change our own views, and look for any and all common ground. There IS common ground there, but we’ll never find it if we don’t talk to one another.

2. We need to be more critical of our own thinking and aware of our biases.

Under the best of circumstances, even for well educated people, it is hard to be aware of and critical of our own presuppositions and the presuppositions of our group.

I remember on day saying to a little boy in my class, When you meet the right girl… and later, I thought to myself, how do you know he’s not gay? It’s so hard to see those heteronormative presuppositions, but once I did, whenever I had cause to say something similar, I would say, When you meet that special person…It was easy to fix, once I recognized the unconscious presupposition.

Being an educator, I’m especially aware of the presuppositions and prejudices that guide so much of our thinking about school.

The poet, thinker and social prophet, Wendell Berry has said, “A powerful superstition of modern life is that people and conditions are improved inevitably by education.” (W. Berry, What Are People For, pg. 24) (I know a high school principle who puts a quote by Oscar Wilde at the end of her emails: You can never be overdressed or overeducated.) He then goes on to tell the story of Nate Shaw, the pseudonym for a black farmer born in Alabama in 1885. When he finishes paying a moving and eloquent tribute to this remarkable man, he asks: So do you think Nate Shaw would have inevitably been improved by education? Clearly the answer is no. And there are all sorts of successful people, some of whom have made tremendous contributions, who have not been well educated. Would they have inevitably been improved by education? That’s not a given. In fact, as Berry points out, if life on the planet is destroyed, it will almost certainly be by the college educated.

One unfortunate, even dangerous, consequence of this superstition about education is it has led to the denigration of physical labor and the people who do it.

When I went from being a school bus driver to being a substitute teacher, I realized just how differently people see those two occupations and the people who do them. Never mind that, as a bus driver, I made more money and had more authority over the children in my charge, my movement from a blue collar worker to a white collar worker was initially viewed with considerable suspicion by many “white collar” teachers.

I recently saw one of those inspirational posters hanging on the wall of a middle school classroom. It began: “I can be…” then went on to list a slew of possible occupations that were colorfully inscribed on a black background in the shape of a light bulb, symbolizing, I assume, that these were occupations of the enlightened or occupations that would bring enlightenment – or, probably, both. Here’s a quick rundown of some of the occupations listed: software developer, doctor, meteorologist, airplane pilot, anthropologist, microbiologist, epidemiologist, astronaut, cartographer, network analyst, medical scientist, computer programmer, veterinarian, zoologist, geographer, archeologist, architect, conservation scientist and so on down to chemist. I found it ironic that nowhere on this classroom inspirational poster did I find the occupation of – teacher.

Our life on this planet depends on 6 inches of topsoil and the occupation most directly involved with the stewardship of this vital resource, farming, is not, and will likely never be, on the list of things we want our students to aspire to. But the truth is, we could lose every occupation on that poster, and we’d still survive, but without 6 inches of topsoil and the knowledge of how to farm it, we’re just so many skeletons littering the face of the planet.

We need to recognize that no matter how enlightened we imagine ourselves to be, we are not immune to unexamined presuppositions, biases, prejudices and even superstitions just like those damn conservatives.

3. “We must be able to imagine ourselves as peacemakers,” the great poet and prophet Wendell Berry writes. “The serious question is whether you're going to become a warrior community and…I think the only antidote to that is imagination. You have to develop your imagination to the point that permits sympathy to happen. You have to be able to imagine lives that are not yours or the lives of your loved ones or the lives of your neighbors. You have to have at least enough imagination to understand that if you want the benefits of compassion, you must be compassionate. If you want forgiveness you must be forgiving.

It's a difficult business, being human.” (Wendell Berry, Sojourners magazine July 2004)

Contrary to what the pundits say; contrary to the vote talley, there are not 2 Americas; there is only one America, and we are all its citizens. We need to eschew the narrative of us vs them. It is only us; it’s only we.

There’s a beautiful story of what that looks like, but – trigger warning – I’m going to have to read from the Bible again.

Luke 19:41 - Jesus weeps over Jerusalem.

So Jesus climbs to a high place where he can look down on the city of Jerusalem, who’s name in the ancient tongue is “city of peace.” Say what you will about the man, but he was not an idiot. He knew the fate that awaited him there; knew that, short of a miracle, the residents of that city, many who had flocked to hear him in the early days, would turn on him like a pack of hyenas; knew that the leaders would finally succeed in what they had been trying to do for years: kill him. He looks down on the city where he knows he will be murdered; and he weeps for it. Now maybe he wept for himself as well; for his followers who he loved and who he knew would be so heartbroken and bereft without him; maybe he wept for the failure of his vision, his hope, his dream for a different kind of Kingdom. Surely, if only in our imaginations, we can allow him that. But Luke shows him weeping for the city itself: “My people, my people…”

If we are going to rise above the default setting of gerbils and be the people where the violence stops, this, it seems to me, must become our prayer: “My people, my people…” Not just “our people,” not “those people,” certainly not “you people” – My people. It is in this prayer, it is in this position, this stance, that we become the peace for which we pray. “My people, my people…”

But that’s not the end of the story, because the next thing that happens, the very next thing…well, let me read it:

Luke 19:45 - Jesus cleanses the temple.

This passage requires a bit of exegesis to understand fully. Contrary to what the text would seem to indicate, it is likely that Jesus was not upset with the money changers themselves. The exchange of coinage was essential to the operation of the Temple. When Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers, he is, in effect, shutting down the normal operation of the Temple. Why? Because beginning with Herod and continuing after his death in 6 BCE, the temple was, in addition to its legitimate cultic function, the center of local collaboration with Rome. The temple, which was to be the house of worship of the God of liberation, of justice and mercy had come to be run by officials, installed by Rome, who colluded with the Empire for their own profit. The Empire, in turn, followed the economic rules of the domination system, which, briefly, was rule of the many by the few, economic exploitation, with religious legitimation. In other words, the Temple then like the church now, especially, as we saw in the election, the evangelical church, has become the handmaiden of the Empire, pronouncing divine sanction on the status quo. This is the temple Jesus shuts down. And he’s not exactly peaceful about it either.

You know those airline miles you’ve been accumulating? You might want to save them. I just gave a bunch ours to Lia so she can attend the Million Woman March in DC on Jan. 21. “I need to do it for my daughter,” she said. You know your bucket list, you might need to dump it out and replace it with direct acts of resistance. You know that vacation you were planning? You might need to be prepared to sacrifice it for something bigger.

And then, you know what happens next according to Luke? Jesus is found teaching.

Look, I know you’re not biblical people, but you’ve got to admit, this is not a bad program: grief, direct action, teaching. But I cannot emphasize enough: it all depends on our willingness and our ability to pray the prayer: “My people, my people…” And I hope you will hold that prayer in your hearts and your minds as we sing our closing hymn: “We’ll Build A Land.”

AMEN

0 notes