Category: Uncategorized

  • At Least I Had Fun

    At Least I Had Fun

    Photo Credit: kevin dooley via Compfight cc

    I read an interview with David Graeber this morning that captures one of the reasons I never felt like I fit in in the academy. I always thought that the point of being an academic was to have fun. Books are fun, words are fun, ideas are fun; the fun of those things were about all that got me through high school and college. Along the way, in the midst of all the fun, we might all learn something, of course. I always thought, though, that we should at least be having fun, and showing our students how to have fun, too.

    But no, friends, it doesn’t work like that. Graeber captures it nicely:

    The reason to go into academia is because it’s pleasurable, it’s fun, it’s basically a form of play—you get to play with ideas.  But somehow academics manage to convince themselves that—what with the insecurities of the job market—in order to get that security, that comfort, you have to give up the pleasure.  You have to become this boring, pedantic academic politician, saying the right things, thinking the right things, publishing in the right places.  It all becomes this careerist, professionalized cage, and you hate yourself for it, and thus what you really hate is anybody who seems to be having fun.

    Over the course of my academic life, a steady drip of seriousness wore down any sense of fun there might have been in the whole enterprise. I was a “Continental” philosopher, one of the ones most committed to the notion of fun, at least in theory. (Don’t get me started on analytic philosophy, which is basically just English common law without state-sanctioned judges.) Even there, though, fun was difficult for me to maintain.

    I think it started to go downhill with my second dissertation committee chair. (I ended up having three.) The second one ultimately left his wife, his children, and the entire country in disgust; his last e-mail message to me from France was a rambling (possibly drunken) missive stating various non-specific deficiencies in my work. Before he left, though, he commented on a chapter I had written, a not particularly rigorous, but fun, examination of the problems of materialism from Descartes through Marx and Lenin (in a dissertation about Edmund Husserl). He said, “This is… interesting, but not very professional. You need to cut this out.”

    He was right, of course. It was not very professional. It was not world-historically insightful. I was still disappointed, though, because before all else it was fun. It was exciting. It made me excited to research it and write about it. My director’s message, though, was clear: Your fun is not professional.

    Of course, we academics get sent this message over and over again. Fun, we are told, is something that has to wait until after you get tenure. (Except, of course, that hardly anyone gets tenure anymore, and the process makes it so that most who get it need years of therapy to learn how to have fun again.) Fun doesn’t get you published in the “right” journals, doesn’t get you promoted. Fun doesn’t solve all of the depressing problems of the humanities and higher education. Fun is for your private life, assuming you retain the capacity to maintain one that goes beyond drinking and canoodling with students. (I never had the slightest inclination or desire to canoodle with students, by the way.) Fun is no way to become a respected functionary in the university and disciplinary bureaucracy.

    Yet I kept insisting on making the work fun. I am not sure I know how to do anything else.

    I had to struggle to get a dissertation completed and defended–long, complicated story there, and I won’t tell it today. The finished product was an awkward, goofy failure. I look back on it and I giggle a bit that a research university approved it, actually. My committee was complimentary, but their primary substantive remark was that what I was doing was “exciting” and “original.” I now think that they were in effect saying “Here is someone who insists on making this academic research thing fun.” It was possibly the kindest thing they could say. My dissertation stank. It was, though, the clear work of someone who was having fun.

    I have a lot of complicated regrets and griefs left over from my old academic career. One thing I can say, though, with some pride is that, as bad an academic as I ended up being, I managed, at the core of it, to enjoy myself.

    At least I had fun.

  • In Search of Golden Tickets: 2. Cold Indifference

    261515265_03bfbeb893_o

    Photo Credit: aeter via Compfight cc

    My son and I are reading Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at bedtime. It was the first full-length book I ever read, and I ended up reading it many times throughout my childhood. Now I am getting to share the book with my own son. I have decided to blog at regular intervals about what we both experience as we share the book together. The first post in the series is here.

    GUILDENSTERN (quietly): Where we went wrong was getting on a boat. We can move, of course, change direction, rattle about, but our movement is contained within a larger one that carries us along as inexorably as the wind and current…

    ROSENCRANTZ: They had it in for us, didn’t they? Right from the beginning. Who’d have thought that we were so important?

    GUILDENSTERN: But why? Was it all for this? Who are we that so much should converge on our little deaths? (In anguish to the PLAYER:) Who are we?

    PLAYER: You are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That’s enough.

    GUILDENSTERN: No– it is not enough. To be told so little– to such an end– and still, finally, to be denied an explanation—-

    PLAYER: In our experience, most things end in death.

    –Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Act Three

    Our reading of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory continues. One of the features of co-parenting is that The Boy and I don’t get to read the book together every night. My ex-wife and I read different books with him at bedtime at our respective houses. It means that we are working our way through the book slowly, but that is just fine. The Boy has a pretty good memory for the details of a good story, so he is always ready to pick back up right where we leave off.

    Last night we finished the part where Augustus Gloop, the gluttonous first recipient of a Golden Ticket, exits the story by falling into Wonka’s river of frothy mixed chocolate and getting shot up a great tall glass tube towards the “strawberry-flavored chocolate-coated fudge room.” It is a pretty frightening scene, really, if you aren’t already inured to it (as I am) from years of re-reading and from years of seeing it on film. After Augustus gets shot up towards whatever destiny awaits him, “like a bullet in the barrel of a gun,” Wonka has a lengthy argument of sorts with Mrs. Gloop, Augustus’s mother. It is a rather long exchange. Mrs. Gloop becomes steadily more upset, shrieking and yelling, while Wonka, who is delightfully amused by the whole affair, can barely stifle his gleeful laughter. Mr. Gloop is almost a nonentity, offering matter-of-fact interjections but otherwise leaving the outrage and panic up to his wife. It is, truth be told, almost too stereotypically gendered a scene: the shrill, emotional mother, the detached father. It is not the only stereotyped moment in the book, either.

    When I read to The Boy, I try to dramatize as best I can. I even try to do different voices, although my repertoire is limited. My Wonka is a high singsongy affair, and my Mrs. Gloop is just me acting as agitated as I can without deafening us both and bothering the neighbors. This scene really called on my inner thespian. The Boy seems to like that.

    We read the following chapter, in which the remainder of the company floats down the chocolate river on Wonka’s boat, before stopping for the night. We usually spend a minute or two talking about the story after we stop. B immediately came back to the fate of poor Augustus. He understood Wonka’s optimism regarding Augustus’s safety, but he clearly didn’t trust it. “What happens to Augustus?” he asked me. He knows I have read the book before. “Is he OK?”

    “Yes, I think so.”

    “Really? Where is he? Does he come back?”

    “Well, no, we never see him in the story again. They just keep on going without him.”

    His brow furrowed. He found this upsetting. He had expected that the story would return to Augustus somewhere along the line. “Oh” was all that he said. He was already sleepy, so he drifted off to sleep after that.

    B is learning an important thing about the kinds of stories that last: they don’t answer all of the questions they raise. He loves the book, but he is still uneasy about the ultimate fate of Augustus. Wonka reassures us that he ends well, or well enough, but even my six-year-old understands that someone who would giggle with delight at the prospect of a boy trapped in a fudge boiler is perhaps not trustworthy. The Oompa-Loompas suggest in no uncertain terms that Augustus will die a rather gruesome death. Wonka is quick to point out that they are joking, that they love to tell jokes– but is this one of them? Or is the operative love of cruel jokes here Wonka’s own?

    More tellingly, Augustus simply exits the stage here for good– whether alive or dead– as something less than an actual character. He never develops or changes or learns. He never gets to be anything more than a naughty boy, the subject of a terrifying Oompa-Loompa morality song, the butt of several fatphobic jokes. He is, from the perspective of the story, a question that is answered as soon as it is asked, and answered with a facile moral lesson.

    It almost makes me want to see someone do for Augustus what Tom Stoppard did for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: that is, give him, and us, a shot at seeing Augustus as a human being with his own story. I fear, though, that the lesson would end up being about the same for Augustus as for those two. Augustus may have been his own person, the subject of his own life, but the story in which he takes part had no need of him in that capacity, just as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern end up dying the same way regardless, shuffling around in apparent freedom while the boat insensibly carries them where it will.

    This lingering unease about the fate of Augustus, and about that of the other children, is part of the genius of this book. In my first post, I stated my conviction that beneath Dahl’s prima facie moralism, this book harbors difficult and subversive truths. Kids are smart; kids get things. My son is no exception. He gets the tensions left behind by a story in which powerful grownups are not particularly concerned whether a kid lives or dies, and in which the story itself means what it means regardless. It bothers him.

    And it should.

  • Focus on the (Chosen) Family

    3867480044_fd23456933_oPhoto Credit: Valeri-DBF via Compfight cc

    This post is my contribution to QueerTheology.com’s Queer Synchroblog 2013. This year’s theme is “Queer Creation.” Links to all of the other excellent entries are at the bottom of this post. After reading mine, go forth and read more!

    In order to get to what the theme “queer creation” evokes in my mind, I need to discuss a point of view about as far removed from my own as I can imagine: the views of extremely conservative and patriarchal evangelical Christianity.

    My interest in those views came into clearer focus a few days ago, when I read Kathryn Joyce’s Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement. It is a compelling but sobering read. In it, Joyce sketches out a portrait of possibly the most theologically and socially conservative Christians in the United States. The organizing commitment that unites the various groups in this wing of American Christianity– homeschooling groups, neo-Reformed and independent fundamentalist Protestant churches, conservative Catholics, anti-choice activists, and others– is their explicit, unapologetic commitment to patriarchy and their relentless enforcement of “traditional” gender norms. The norms in question stem from Christian patriarchy’s adoption of a controversial and much-discussed “complementarian” view of gender.

    What came into clearer focus for me in reading Joyce’s book than it had before was the extent to which a broad claim underwrites the theology and way of life of Christian patriarchy: a belief that the nuclear family and its gender roles– a married man and woman producing offspring– constitutes the basic unit of the human world. The family enjoys that basic status not by accident, but because God created it and endowed it with fundamental value, and created human beings as what they are in the context of it. For patriarchy, men and women are what they are in the first instance in virtue of the roles they play in their families: The husband the “lord” and “head,” the wife the submissive “helpmeet” and bearer of children. These roles are ordained outside of all history, outside of all time, by the creative will of God from the beginning. As such, Christian patriarchy’s attitude towards the family and towards its embedded gender roles is tied to a strongly metaphysical set of claims about creation. The nuclear family for these folks is not a contingent accident of evolution or simply a convenient way of organizing society in light of other institutions that happen to prevail at any given period in history. It is woven into the very fabric of the universe. Attempt to mess with that, and you threaten the ruination not only of society, but also possibly of creation itself, by inviting the judgment of the Creator in defense of what he has putatively created.

    I feel like I have to intervene at this point to say that I can’t possibly imagine what it would be like to believe these things about God or the universe. I don’t mean for that to come off as flippant or smug, although it very well may be both. I know that the controlling, abusive, violent behavior these beliefs enable– the thoroughgoing effort to control the bodies and behavior of women, down to the finest detail, that they help rationalize– is very real, very painful, and, in many cases, deadly. Aside from that, I just can’t understand what it would be like to open my eyes in the morning and to see a world staring back at me in which the nuclear family with a God-like man as the unquestioned head forms the fundamental metaphysical building block. It ignores, willfully, the lessons of history and the social sciences that show the nuclear family to be a dynamic and ever-changing institution, one that always interacts with, and is shaped by, economics, politics, and culture.

    More basically, though, I fear what it would be like to be forced to live in such an oppressive world. It is certainly not a place that has room for me, a queer man, much less for all of the strong, wise, outspoken women who have blessed my life so richly with their friendship, their stories, and their love. Nor does it seem to be the sort of world that would have much use for Jesus, or at least the Jesus I encounter in Scripture: the bachelor Jesus who dragged his disciples all over Palestine, far from their families; the one who said, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26); the one who said that “where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:20). Perhaps Jesus, being God, gets an exemption from the requirement incumbent on everyone else to marry and put their family first. But then it becomes hard to understand just what taking up discipleship, taking up one’s cross and following Jesus, is supposed to look like for us if we say that what Jesus does has little role in showing us the way. It seems to ascribe to Jesus the same sort of “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that he clearly finds so objectionable in everyone else.

    Queer folk long ago developed the idea of “chosen family”: the idea, that is, that the people who are your actual family are the ones who behave like it, supporting you, loving you, bearing you up, holding you accountable when you need it, whether or not those folks are your biological relations. We developed the notion because, for so many of us, our biological relations want nothing to do with us or are overtly hostile and abusive to us. I like to think that the way Jesus sought to show us, the way of love for our fellow humans, embodies the potential for unlocking this notion of chosen family– a queered notion of family, one in which tight bonds of community and care form across biological barriers, unlikely and unforeseen and ambiguous and fragile but also deep and abiding and nourishing. Of course, some or all of your chosen family may also consist of your biological relations. As family systems theory in family therapy shows us, though, even among a biologically-related family unit, people can pick up and get assigned all sorts of different roles and relationships, and those roles and relationships can change over time.

    Chosen family, at its best, is a family in which we finally get to own our own loving. It is one in which love kept fenced in by just-so stories, one that claims the deliverances of metaphysical or grand historical narratives gives way to a love that embraces reality and feels its way forward through the shadows. It is one that has room for the full panoply of human relatedness: For lovers, for biological and adopted children, for friends and neighbors, for co-parents and step-parents. It is a family in which God’s creative love fuses passionately with the creativity and love we possess as being made in God’s image.

    This is the world I strive to see when I open my eyes in the morning. I hope it is a world that we all of us can eventually help to bring about, with God’s help, together.

    This Year’s Entries

    Queering Our Reading of the Bible by Dwight Welch

    Queer Creation in art: Who says God didn’t create Adam and Steve? by Kittrdge Cherry

    Of The Creation of Identity (Also the Creation of Religion) by Colin & Terri

    God, the Garden, & Gays: Homosexuality in Genesis by Brian G. Murphy, for Queer Theology

    Created Queerly–Living My Truth by Casey O’Leary

    Creating Theology by Fr. Shannon Kearns

    Initiation by Blessed Harlot

    B’reishit: The Divine Act of Self-Creation by Emily Aviva Kapor

    Queer Creation: Queering the Image of God by Alan Hooker

    Queer Creation by Ric Stott

    Eunuch-Inclusive Esther–Queer Theology 101 by Peterson Toscano

    Valley of Dry Bones by Jane Brazelle

    Queer Creation: Queer Angel by Tony Street

    The Great Welcoming by Anna Spencer

    Queer Creation by Billy Flood

    The Mystery of an Outlandishly Queer Creation by Susan Cottrell

    We’ve Been Here All Along by Brian Gerald Murphy

    God Hirself: A Theology by T. Thorn Coyle

    The Objectification of God by Marg Herder

    Coming Out As Embodiments of God Herself by Virginia Ramey Mollenkott

    An Interview by Katy

    On Creation and Belonging by Andrew Watson

    Creation by Liam Haakon Smith

    Practically Creating Practical Queer Theology by Talia Johnson

    Inspired Possibility: Opening the Gift of the Queer Soul by Keisha McKenzie

    Oh What A Difference A Pope Makes! by Hilary Howes

    I’m Really Angry by John Smid

    The Goddex by Thorin Sorensen

  • In Search of Golden Tickets (Part 1)

    Alfred E. Wonka Photo Credit: Artriarch via Compfight cc

    Two days ago, my son and I began to read Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory at bedtime. It was the first full-length book I ever read, and I ended up reading it many times throughout my childhood. Now I am getting to share the book with my own son. I have decided to blog at regular intervals about what we both experience as we share the book together.

    It seems important before anything else to say something about my own relationship to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. What I say shall, I suspect, help explain why sharing it with my own son is so significant to me.

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my favorite book as a child. The reasons why are a little hard to explain. I was a rather odd child. At least I felt odd. All children are probably odd, when you get right down to it, although more often than not we are made to feel like we shouldn’t have been. My oddity was that I was unabashedly morbid. From a very early age death felt like a clear and present reality to me. I felt like all around shadows of the dead lurked, shadows with stories they could tell if they wanted but never would. I felt surrounded by secrets that only the dead knew for sure. So when other children began to dream of what they would be when they grew up, they had dreams of becoming firefighters or policemen or the like. The first thing I ever wanted to be was a mortician. How else would I ever get to spend time with the dead? How else would they teach me what I needed to know? Certainly the world of bright colors and happy endings wasn’t the whole story.

    I learned to read early, and I always loved reading. When I was seven or eight years old, my Aunt Sue gave me Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a Christmas gift. It was the first long book I ever read. I remember being drawn into it with a sense of increasing recognition. The book is clearly for kids, if only because the protagonist is a profoundly sympathetic boy, and the goings-on are magical, sometimes whimsical. But, like just about everything Roald Dahl ever wrote, it is also dark, sarcastic, threatening, and occasionally violent. The book has a happy ending, for virtuous Charlie, at least, but there are many sticky endings for the other characters in the book: kids end up attacked by squirrels, juiced like blueberries, exploded into clouds of electrons.

    Then there is the character of Willy Wonka himself, the crackpot brujo pulling all of the strings. Ostensibly, Willy Wonka is a force for good in the universe. Not only does he make candy, which is good in itself, but his entire Golden Ticket promotion turns out to be an exercise in rewarding virtue and punishing vice. No wonder parents let their kids read this book! The moral of the story seems to be clear: Don’t chew too much gum or be a brat or watch too much TV, and you will be OK. It would all be so wholesome and didactic, except that Wonka, the guarantor of moral order, is himself juvenile, vindictive, capricious, exploitative– hardly an ideal role model. Even his light-hearted whimsy carries an undercurrent of barely concealed malice, a hatred for just the sort of sugar-overloaded children who are his best customers. If Wonka is wielding his considerable power and cleverness to secure the triumph of virtue, it is for no other reason than that he found virtue more amusing that week.

    (The malicious undercurrent of Wonka’s glee is why, among film portrayals of this story, I tend to prefer Johnny Depp’s portrayal in Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to Gene Wilder’s in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Wilder’s Wonka is a great character with occasional flashes of sarcasm– as the Condescending Wonka Meme indicates– but he is a bit too genial. Depp’s Wonka captures the essential maliciousness of Wonka. Pity, though, that Burton felt pressure to mitigate the impact of it by appending a spurious psychologizing backstory onto Wonka to explain “how he got that way.” Apparently the movies are not ready for a character who represents sui generis mischief.)

    For all of its seeming moralism, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a story about how being a good little boy only pays off, if it does, because the reward system put in place by grownups is utterly and completely arbitrary. I can hardly think of a more subversive message– and a more relevant one in these days of “creative destruction” and forced labor precarity under late capitalism. When I read the book as a child, I of course had no way of articulating any of that. But I, the boy who dwelled on mortality and the limits of what my world contained, felt like that book was telling me the truth. It wasn’t about death, but it seemed to be telling a lot of truths about life and not trying to hide them from me.

    My son is odd too. I am sure I do not yet understand the half of his oddness. But I am still odd too, and now that I am supposed to be on the supply side of virtue and order, it doesn’t feel much less arbitrary. In some ways, it feels more arbitrary, not less. I think I look forward to sharing this book with my son because, among other things, I want him to know that, through all of life’s cant and hypocrisy and superficiality, I am here with him, working to see the truth and make sense of it too.

    *********

    So far, we have read the first seven chapters. Wonka has announced his unprecedented Golden Ticket promotion, and two rather unpleasant children, Augustus Gloop and Veruca Salt, have found the first of the coveted tickets. Chapter 7, “Charlie’s Birthday,” greets us with high hopes, as impoverished Charlie receives his annual birthday chocolate– a bar of “WONKA’S WHIPPLE-SCRUMPTIOUS FUDGEMALLOW DELIGHT.”

    The natural expectation, especially for those of us who have watched too many movies with plot shortcuts, is to expect that Charlie’s birthday bar will contain ticket number three. Certainly this was The Boy’s expectation. As we began the chapter, his eyes lit up with delight, and he said “Ooh, Charlie is going to get a Golden Ticket!!!” He clearly is genuinely invested in Charlie.

    We read the chapter together, The Boy with barely disguised excitement. The suspense builds and builds as Charlie slowly opens the bar in his grandparents’ bed. And, of course, his bar doesn’t contain the ticket, and his parents and grandparents console him. Interestingly, though, The Boy didn’t take the story’s word for it when it said that the bar didn’t contain a Golden Ticket. It says, very clearly, “There was no sign of a Golden Ticket anywhere,” but as I finished reading the chapter to him, he said “Wait a minute! The Golden Ticket is in the wrapper and he didn’t see it!”

    As the chapter finished with Charlie’s mother summoning him to school– “‘Come on, or you’ll be late’”– I had to tell The Boy, “No, he didn’t get a Golden Ticket in his candy bar.” This made him sad and confused. His brow furrowed, and he began thinking. “I bet he gets a Golden Ticket some other way! I bet he gets another candy bar!” My prosaic side thinks that he understands storytelling well enough to understand that there is a lot of book left, and Charlie, the main character, has to get in that factory somehow, or else the rest of the book makes no sense.

    I wonder, though, if it isn’t that he just doesn’t feel a raw sense of compassion for Charlie. Moralism aside, it is next to impossible to read the opening chapters of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and not feel a deep sense that Charlie deserves good things. He is so poor, yet he genuinely loves being around his grandparents and listening to their stories. He is also generous; the part where Charlie, crestfallen about not getting the Golden Ticket in his birthday Wonka bar, wants to share his chocolate with everyone in the room, moves me to tears every time.

    That is where our reading ended for the night, and, after The Boy speculated about Charlie’s eventual good fortune for a while, he still seemed sad. I asked him, “Do you feel sad for Charlie?”

    “Yeah,” he said.

    “Because he didn’t get a Golden Ticket?”

    “Yeah. And he is so poor.”

    “He is. But he is rich in other ways,” I said.

    “Really?”

    “Yes. He has lots of people in his life who love him. His parents and his grandparents.”

    The Boy had no response to that. I wonder if he saw himself in that description. He is also very fortunate in that respect, I think. His material circumstances are comfortable enough, but he also has lots of people in his life who love him and want to spend time with him.

    Tonight we will read some more and see what the story has in store for us both.

  • Chase’s Collection, Debt Sales Reined In by Regulators

    2110710885_2990214653Photo Credit: swisscan via Compfight cc

    This post will read like a bit of a departure for me, since it has to do with a side of my life (consumer debt and collections) about which I don’t typically blog. This piece of news, though, is hard to summarize in a tweet or a Facebook status.

    As reported in the financial press a few days ago, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has entered into a consent order with JPMorgan Chase Bank and its affiliates regarding its debt collection activity, sworn document procedures, and related practices regarding consumer debt. A copy of the consent order (PDF) is here.

    The consent order is the outcome of a regulatory probe that began sometime in 2011 as the result of whistleblowers calling attention to sloppy practices in Chase’s consumer collections division. The practices–robosigning, poor document retention, lax oversight of outside attorneys– mirrored similar problems that plagued the mortgage lending industry in the wake of the burst of the housing bubble in 2008. Chase’s own press release regarding the consent order points out that it ceased collection litigation in the second quarter of 2011 as a result of its own internal review.

    The Consent Order is very noteworthy in the context of collection of consumer debt. Of special note is the fact that the OCC has obtained Chase’s agreement to increase its oversight and due diligence related to sales of consumer debt to third-party debt buyers. In my opinion, this is a huge development. Sales of defaulted consumer debt to debt buyers shunt consumer debt away from banks, who are regulated (although probably not enough) into a far more loosely regulated realm that increases the risk of abuses. The economic meltdown of 2008 in particular led to a cascading waterfall of consumer debt getting unloaded onto the third-party debt buyer marketplace. It has taken regulators (including the FTC and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, who have oversight over debt collection, but lack rule-making authority) a while to catch up to this state of affairs. (Chase may have suspended much of its collections and collection litigation in 2011, but to my knowledge they did not stop selling defaulted debt to debt buyers, who are only too happy to file suit on their own behalf.)

    Today’s consent order with  follows on the heels of the OCC’s publication this July of best practices (not formal rules) regarding such sales of consumer debt. The OCC, who regulates the largest national banks and credit issuers in the United States, has not previously paid a lot of attention to banks’ sales of consumer debt.

    As someone who used to work in debt collection and still keeps a close eye on that world, I think the OCC’s moves here are a positive sign. I have thought for a long time that many of the problems with debt buyers and their collection activities go back to the ability of banks to offload their defaulted credit portfolios so easily– and, to date, with little oversight. More developments are sure to come; stay tuned.

  • Twelve Years Ago

    2013-09-11 19.00.25

    What am I supposed to learn?

    I haven’t learned it yet

    Smoke another cigarette

    –Michael Knott, “Jail”

    Twelve years ago today, I was living in State College, Pennsylvania. I was ABD (“all but dissertation”) in the Ph.D. program at Penn State University. I was teaching two sections of Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, both of which met on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. It was a Tuesday, though, so I had no particular place to be.

    I had been married for a little over two years, and my then-wife, Cheryl, was doing odds and ends while I finished my dissertation. She had always felt a call to work with elderly people– she is currently a social worker in a long-term care facility–and at that time, she volunteered a lot at the local Senior Center. (Its director at the time, Barb Lindenbaum, one of the loveliest, most gentle souls I have ever met, has since passed on from cancer.) That morning, Cheryl was getting ready to volunteer at the Senior Center for a few hours.

    For my part, I had no particular place to be, so I was watching the morning shows in my pajamas while she got ready to go out. In those days, I watched a lot of TV news. That morning, I was watching the Today show. Ann Curry, I think, was interviewing an author who had just published a biography of Howard Hughes. Not long after the interview wrapped up, Matt Lauer broke in with live video of a smoking hole in the side of one of the two towers of the World Trade Center. A tragic freak accident, it seemed; they made mention of the plane that hit the Empire State Building during World War II. Clearly, though, the plane that had hit the tower was much bigger. Looking at the hole, which was belching thick black smoke, and doing New Yorker mental math, the Today show hosts speculated on-air that the plane had to be the size of an airliner. It had obviously veered very far off course– flight plans never took an airliner close enough to the WTC for this to be a near-miss situation. The mystery of how the plane had gotten so far off course, coupled with the logistical challenge of fighting a raging fire at the top of one of the tallest buildings in the world, already made it clear that the story would dominate the rest of the morning’s news.

    As Cheryl gathered herself to go out to the Senior Center, I directed her attention to the TV and told her what appeared to have happened. She noted it with an appropriate level of alarm, which was not much, and then left. She was never as interested in the news as I was.

    I was at home alone in the apartment, then, and settled in for the day. Research and writing would have to wait; this was major news, and I had to watch. I scanned the cable news channels and other morning shows. No one else seemed to have anything more than NBC had. I had made my way back to the Today show, who had a live feed fixed on the WTC, when the second plane hit. As TV news types are trained to do, Matt Lauer and company had been talking incessantly, but when a corner of the second tower erupted in a gigantic fireball, they almost inaudibly gasped in unison and fell silent. That gasp and that stunned silence was unlike anything I recall ever seeing on live television before or since. It couldn’t have lasted more than three or four seconds, but it felt like it lasted longer. I think it should have lasted longer, really.

    Once the TV news folks regained their composure, they reached the conclusion quickly that the planes must have hit the towers deliberately. The odds of two random airliners hitting both of those towers within minutes of one another was unthinkable. A scan of the other morning shows and cable news channels indicated that every major news network had reached the same conclusion. I shoved a tape into the VCR, set it to record at the slowest (6-hour) speed, and began to record what was happening. This was clearly historic.

    Ultimately I recorded the news, mostly CNN, for 24 hours. I still have the tapes somewhere, but I have only had the stomach to review them once.

    Pretty much everyone who was alive and watching the news that morning remembers that from that moment on, there were several hours of steadily elevating panic. Not long after the planes hit the WTC, reports came in of a crashed airliner somewhere in the vicinity of the Pentagon. Reports were vague at the time– I seem to recall that reports were vague as to the number of planes that had crashed, whether one or more planes had hit the building, whether a bomb had exploded in conjunction with all of this. The major news outlets didn’t have cameras trained on the Pentagon the way they had them trained on lower Manhattan. It took a while for anyone to get video or a live feed going from there. Not long after, there were unconfirmed reports– later falsified– of bombs exploding on the National Mall and in front of the State Department. All the while, the towers burned in NYC, and the reports and video from the streets of the city was all panic and shock.

    It was somewhere in that bedlam of news that the local NBC affiliate in State College, WJAC-TV, broke in over the Today show (who had hauled in Tom Brokaw out of retirement and every other military and aviation reporter and analyst they had) to report a crashed airplane not far outside Pittsburgh. They were, so far as I know, the first to report that event, which proved to be the downing of United Flight 93 short of its intended target due to the heroic actions of a group of passengers. No one knew that that morning; that story would be told later. All we knew was that another plane had fallen out of the sky, the fourth that morning.

    The news had already broken, I think, that the FAA and the federal government had grounded all civilian air traffic and restricted all airspace over the continental United States, an utterly unprecedented move. But that didn’t matter; planes were coming out of the sky in New York City, in Washington, D.C., and near Shanksville, PA. Each location formed the corner of a triangle, and near the center of that triangle was where I sat, watching the news.

    I was still alone at home. I could see the TV from my front door. I stood in the door jamb, one ear on the TV, one ear to the sky, waiting for planes to fall. It was utterly quiet. I was scared.

    *********

    The rest of the horrible aftermath of that day unfolded from that point. No more planes crashed, no bombs exploded, but both World Trade Center towers fell in a scene of sheer horror. Cheryl came home just after the first tower fell, but before the second; she had received word from Barb, who had heard from her husband Sandy that something major had happened. She didn’t know, though, that one of the towers had fallen, and when I told her, she was dumbfounded. The video from the ground was of absolute panic, of a million pieces of paper and slivers of metal and glass and choking dust. The fall of the second tower not long after was, by that point, a grim coda.

    The days, weeks, and months that followed were a mixture of shadows and fog, grief and anger, and, more than anything, fear. The fear was pervasive. No one knew exactly what to expect next. There were reports of attacks on Muslims and on anyone who was thought to be Muslim. College campuses around the country received crank bomb threats; the building that housed the English as a Second Language classes at Penn State received at least two that week, presumably because many foreigners could be found there. My Twitter friend Louisa (@LouisatheLast) reminded me today that the Penn State community was apprehensive about that Saturday’s football game, not because Beaver Stadium is a politically meaningful target, but just because a large number of people would be gathered there. Once airspace reopened, airports took on the air of militarized zones, with minimum safe distances for pickup and dropoff and tighter new security rules.

    In the news media, a narrative of war and retaliation consolidated quickly, within minutes and hours of the planes hitting. While the towers burned, Tom Brokaw on NBC definitively called the attack an act of war, and others on NBC and elsewhere had begun to connect the attack to Bin Laden. That looming emotion of fear, grief, and wounded pride fused, in the country’s collective dazed state, with the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration and their house organ, Fox News. I don’t have a recording of it, but I clearly remember that Fox News showed, more than once, video that purported to be men, women, and children celebrating the attacks on the streets of Nablus: A clear attempt to distill the prevailing anger and fear and aim it towards the Palestinians and, by extension, the entire Arab world. But Fox News was not the only one to show the video, and they weren’t the only one eager to channel silent, overwhelming emotions into political directions. All around, there was a race to invest the attacks with political meaning.

    The next day, September 12, I was scheduled to teach class. The university emphasized to all that class sessions, and class attendance, was completely optional that day. I held class that day, but not to teach philosophy of science. It felt perverse to teach Karl Popper, one of Margaret Thatcher’s major intellectual influences, on that day, with his “third world” of sterile ideal objects insulated from history that, nevertheless, white Europeans seemed to have greater purchase on than anyone else. Instead, I offered it as a forum to let all of us, myself included, try to talk through what the hell just happened. I said a few words to start off with. I said that the world was collectively sailing into rough waters as regards our identities and their social and political meanings, a world in which being a citizen of a (liberal) nation-state was undergoing transformations and showing its limits, a world in which other markers of identity such as religion would prove increasingly intractable to state-driven politics. I predicted that whatever lessons this horrible set of events had to teach us would take us a very, very long time to learn, if we learned them at all. It all sounded so important at the time. I am not sure now.

    *********

    For the last eight or nine years, I have begun this post in some form or fashion, but I have never finished it and published it. The emotions have been at times still a bit raw for me. I also felt like my relationship to the events of that day was tangential. I didn’t lose any friends or family, and I wasn’t particularly close to Ground Zero or the Pentagon or even to Shanksville. I was like most Americans, who watched it all unfold on television. More than anything, though, I was nagged by the sense that I couldn’t write about that day without feeling like I had sorted through what I thought it all meant. I felt like my post had to do more than stop; it had to conclude.

    By this point, twelve years on, in 2013, the events of September 11, 2001 have been endlessly echoed, repeated, re-played, appropriated and reappropriated, analyzed into microscopic bits and reassembled, broken apart and spackled over, and, as time goes on, increasingly compressed to fit into rituals of forced remembrance. 9/11 spawned one war (Afghanistan) and fueled the deception, naked imperial ambition, and collective suspension of disbelief that spawned another (Iraq). It ushered in a revival of fear-based nativist jingoism in politics that is still very much with us in the age of Obama and the “birther” movement. After a longer-than-usual period of reverent silence, Hollywood eventually made its round of movies and television programs about it. 9/11-inspired ideological slogans graced innumerable bumper stickers, yard signs, and T-shirts, the event and its meaning shattered into a million little pieces of paper and slivers of metal.

    Yet I still struggle with the notion that perhaps the events of September 11, 2001 still sit there, difficult to recollect and perhaps locked in the past. I once felt like it was important to remember that day and remember it well, beyond the cloud of nostalgia and ideological politics. I even preached a sermon once with that message. It seemed like an important message at the time. I am not sure now.

    I am beginning to believe that what 9/11 holds for us is in the small things: The brief , seemingly pointless fragments of memory that take on immense significance. Whenever I think about or tell my story of where I was on 9/11 and what I was doing, for some reason I always, always, come back to standing in my doorway, listening and looking for planes and hearing utter, complete silence. Even today, I think that I am no further along in understanding that day than standing at the doorway and listening to a vast gulf of silence.

    I also think of how others, mostly in Pakistan, to this day stand in their doorways and listen and look for planes: unmanned drones, in their case, operated remotely by Americans in the heartland. Silence does not uniformly greet them, though: instead, what they hear is the buzzing sound of aerial killer robots which, on occasion, rain down death. There are children in Pakistan whose entire lives have been lived under the shadow of these drones, drones that our country flies largely out of a desire to prevent another 9/11 from happening– to us. One has to be utterly insensitive to the basic humanity of Pakistanis not to understand that it is monstrous to expect people to live their lives feeling what I felt in that doorway, and worse, on a constant basis. I think we Americans will someday have to reckon not only with the deaths of innocent civilians brought about by our drone program, but also the intangible, but surely immense, psychological damage we have inflicted on an entire generation of Pakistanis and others.

    One of the ideological slogans birthed by 9/11 was “never forget.” I am beginning to wonder, though, if forgetting is really a problem we have to guard against here. I certainly don’t know how to forget that day. It seems that we are never allowed to forget it, that its ghosts still haunt us. Maybe we should be allowed to forget it for a little while. Maybe we would then see what kind of life we might be capable of without having to position ourselves constantly with respect to it. It could even be the beginning of some other, better small things.

  • Reading, Again and for the First Time

    2013-09-05 12.30.40

    As is clear from the date of my last post, I haven’t been blogging much lately. It’s not that I haven’t had thoughts. Some of them are even decent enough to be bloggable. Life, though, has intervened in many ways, none of them really bad, most of them very good. The summer was a blur of activity, and now that the fall and its routines are beginning to take hold, my thoughts are turning to the stretch of time between now and the new year. I made no new year’s resolutions this year, and I didn’t set any specific goals, but still it would be nice to make this year count somehow. The year is two-thirds gone, after all.

    Part of the blur of the summer involved teaching. I taught a summer class, Introduction to Ethics, which involved a whole semester’s work in six weeks. On top of a day job, that was difficult. However, I survived it, and by late June, it was done. I then set my sights on preparing to teach a great class this fall– an undergraduate religious studies seminar, Topics in Gender and Western Religion. Sadly, though, I was late in promoting the class, and it ended up being cancelled due to insufficient enrollment. I am hoping to attract enough students to teach it in the spring.

    Now that I have more free time, I have been reading a lot just for pleasure. This is a huge development for me. I spent 1996 through 2002 in a Ph.D. program in philosophy, and that experience very nearly destroyed my ability to read for pleasure. I have spoken to others who had a similar experience. My research demanded a very intensive, very close style of reading for fine shades of meaning and narrow distinctions, and a keen eye and ear for what is being said and what is very pointedly not being said. This kind of reading is to pleasure reading as professional race car driving is to a meandering tour through the country. It is a discipline that is at once mental and physical, like a kind of exercise, and, like muscle memory, it has a mind of its own and is hard to turn off or unlearn.

    After I left off the search for a tenure-track philosophy job and decided to see the wider world, I at first rejoiced in the prospect of being able to read what I want, just for fun. But I couldn’t simply turn off the way I was trained to read in my academic years. It was like driving at 180 mph to the grocery store, which is only fun if you are Ricky Bobby. For me, it was painful and unpleasant. I had lost my ability to enjoy language and words for themselves, to get caught up on the surface level of writing and to draw conclusions, if any, later, or on a second reading (if the book was good). I soon stopped reading altogether, and my life was worse for it. There was a literary hole in my life, and there had been for a long time. I barely read anything longer than a blog post or a Facebook status for three years.

    I am beginning to change, though. Right now I am reading, or have recently finished, all sorts of informative and fun things, none of which have any specific relationship to my teaching or my work:

    • The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.
    • 1Q84, by Haruki Murakami.
    • Salsa Nocturna, by Daniel José Older.
    • March, Volume One, by Congressman John Lewis, Andrew Aydin, and Nate Powell.
    • Vathek, by William Beckford.

    Plus I have so much more in my queue that I want to read:

    • Persepolis, by Marjane Satrapi.
    • So Far From God, by Ana Castillo.
    • Naked Lunch: The Restored Text, by William Burroughs.
    • The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, by Junot Díaz.
    • Let’s Pretend This Never Happened, by Jenny Lawson (The Bloggess).

    Those are, of course, just the most proximate items on the list. I have a lengthy list of stuff I want to read. None of this, moreover, includes any of the reading I am doing as research for my prospective course on gender and religion in the spring (this will likely be the subject of another post).

    Wide reading used to be a constant feature of my life. I lost sight of it in my early thirties, much to my detriment. How did I find my way back to books? There are three main reasons. The first is, quite simply, time: My life as an academic continues to recede further into the past. So many things have changed for me since then, much of it in the last three years. True, I still teach, but it is different now: I teach on the side, just because I like it (and the small supplement in income), and it isn’t my whole life.

    The second reason is my significant other. Yes, I have one of those. She is a sometime book editor and still reads widely with childish delight, a keen critical sense, and an editor’s eye. (She is pretty amazing.) She enjoys reading and her enjoyment is contagious– both the general sense of joy she has in it, and the specific titles she recommends to me. Books and writing are a constant feature of our conversations, which is perfectly delightful.

    The third, and not least important, is that my six-year-old son is beginning to learn to read in earnest. He is not quite ready for chapter books yet, but he is close. His reading and spelling are quite good, and what’s more, he seems to enjoy it. It is so amazing to watch an entire universe of new ideas and new vistas for the imagination slowly open themselves to him, bit by bit. We have been reading books together at bedtime pretty much constantly since he was four. His current favorite is the Captain Underpants series; together, we have read eight of the ten current books, and we are working through a ninth. My ex-wife, his mother, also reads to him, and her choices are even more ambitious: C.S. Lewis’s Narnia series and Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories. He is clearly chomping at the bit to read independently and to read more challenging things. As his ability grows, I hope he continues to find books that capture his imagination and enrich his mind and his heart.

    I haven’t written anything about the reading I have been doing, and that might come later. For now, I am reveling in the sheer joy of good, entertaining, informative writing. If you have been meaning to read a book, go do it! Do you know an author? Thank them for some writing they have done that you have enjoyed. Go to the library; go to a local bookseller; go and read.

  • Dead Flowers

    Dead Flowers

    Photo Credit: Joe Shlabotnik via Compfight cc

    This morning The Boy and I walked downstairs to pile in the car for school and for work. On the way down the back steps, he noticed for the first time that our downstairs neighbors have new flowers– a round container of flourishing purple petunias. They are quite lovely, a welcome addition to an otherwise drab back porch.

    His reaction, though, was different from mine. “Are those real flowers? Those are real flowers,” he half asked, half stated.

    “Yes, they are real. I like them!”

    “They should get fake flowers. Real ones die.”

    I struggled to explain. “Yes, real flowers die. Nothing lives forever. But real flowers are so nice while they are alive. They are wonderful while they are here with us.”

    But he was having none of it. “Fake flowers are better.”

    I was going to add: “Real flowers are wonderful. That they will die doesn’t take away from how wonderful they are now.” But he had already skipped merrily to the car. He is always in a race with me to the car, and, true to form, he won the race while I was busy offering explanations.

    Someday my son shall have to tarry longer beside dying flowers. But there will be time for that. I am glad he doesn’t have to today.

    A line of Pindar from the eighth Nemean Ode reads: “But human excellence grows like a vine tree, fed like the green dew, raised up, among wise men and just, to the liquid sky.” Martha Nussbaum, commenting on this line in The Fragility of Goodness, writes: “[The poet] suggests that part of the peculiar beauty of human excellence just is its vulnerability. The tenderness of a plant is not the dazzling hardness of a gem.”

    I have come to believe this is true: That what is good for us, and valuable, is not good and valuable in spite of its being limited and transitory. Rather, its goodness is tied to a vulnerability and uniqueness that it only has by virtue of its being limited and fleeting. There may be eternal, invulnerable goods– in fact, I believe there are– but they are of an order entirely different than the distinctly human goods. And I believe that we do not need to take care of them so much as they take care of us.

    Many people, both close to me and far, grieve today, and weep, and wait in apprehension. I am right there with you. Let us grieve, and weep, and wait. But let us also stop and ponder purple petunias.

  • On Being a “Plain Member and Citizen”

    On Being a “Plain Member and Citizen”

    Photo Credit: AlicePopkorn via Compfight cc

    See Update below.

    Tonight I am following up on the so-called “religious freedom” bill, House Bill 279, that was the subject of my last post. The news is sad, but not surprising. The Senate Judiciary Committee received the bill from the House, along with a proposed amendment that would have reined in its potential effects on civil rights protections such as the fairness ordinances in Louisville, Lexington, Covington, and Vicco. On a 9-2 vote, the committee voted to refer the bill as-is, without the amendment, to the Senate floor for a vote. The Senate will almost certainly approve the bill, and it will then go to Governor Steve Beshear for his signature. While the Governor’s spokesperson has stated that he will “weigh its impact” and its “unintended consequences,” the bill has enough votes in both chambers to override a veto, if he is even inclined to veto it. It is doubtful he will use a veto in this situation.

    So the “religious freedom” bill will soon become the law of the state of Kentucky.

    As the bill works its way towards the governor’s desk, I have two sets of somewhat related reflections.

    I.

    Legislation like this engenders a lot of world-weary, told-you-so commentary from progressives. The line I have in mind is some permutation of the following: “Of course Kentucky, cheek by jowl with the deep South, voted to roll back civil rights protections for women and LGBTQ folk in the name of (conservative Christian) religion. It has a legislature dominated by rural white male Republicans. It is a red state with a few islands of blue, and its delegation in Washington reflects that. What else do you expect, really? Are we supposed to be shocked or surprised?” The clear implication is that, because the outcome was utterly predictable, speaking out about it as I did– as many others did– was a touching but futile gesture. It would have been more savvy to save that energy for what really counts– a potential court challenge to the bill. Or, better yet, escape Kentucky entirely, since there have to be more friendly places to live. Or just spend time doing something more enjoyable and productive. Anything, it seems, but engage in the quixotic spectacle of tilting at the windmill of entrenched conservative Christian privilege with little realistic hope of success.

    I am sensitive to all of the above, because there would have been a time when I would have said or thought the same thing. That time, though, coincides with that part of my life in which I identified as straight. It is easy to be hard-nosed when it’s not your nose on the line. I still have it easier than a lot of folks– I am a white man with a lot of education, a parent, and a churchgoer, and all of those things help me. I can pull off a pretty good “normal” act. But this bill turns me into a target, and it turns women, people of color, and pretty much anyone else who conservative religion disfavors into a target as well.

    In the face of that targeting, I feel like I have to speak out and make my objections known. I don’t have any specific reason to believe that writing blog posts, or sharing calls to action on Facebook or Twitter, or calling and e-mailing my legislators and the Kentucky House and Senate leadership, or getting all of my friends to do the same, are going to change the outcome. The constituency represented by organizations like The Family Foundation of Kentucky and the Ethics and Public Policy Center, both organizations that are implicated in “religious freedom” initiatives like these, have more sway here than people like me: more power and more funding to obfuscate, to misinform, to advance sophistic arguments that convince the privileged and powerful that they are really the ones who are threatened and need protection.

    How, though, can I testify to the failure of consideration and of the democratic process this bill represents, if I stand haughtily above the whole process and say knowingly “I told you so” when the process fails? How is any of us supposed to have any idea how to speak up as citizens of a democracy, as human beings, if we don’t start trying to do it now? How is anyone supposed to know what it looks like if we don’t actually try to do it? It’s not as if waiting around on the sidelines for the planets to align properly and for everyone to commit to playing nice is such a shrewder political strategy. All that does is yield politics to the people who play it like a sport, and the sport they usually are playing is American football– violent, heteronormative, and a never-ending source of brain trauma. If we want to hang on to the notion that politics is a matter of how we manage our own co-existence, and that we all have a stake in how that happens, sitting on the sidelines is not an option. In fact, sitting on the sidelines is tacit support for the oppressor.

    Of course, different individuals have different amounts of time and energy at their disposal; everyone has to live their life. Not everyone can man the barricades be in the thick of every struggle. But there is a difference between having limited time and energy and using time and energy to throw darts or yawn theatrically at those of us who are using our energy to speak out.

    II.

    So far most commentary on House Bill 279 I have seen focuses on the threat it poses to civil rights protections for LGBTQ persons in Kentucky. This threat is real, but it is by no means the only one. In fact, I believe that this bill’s proponents would only view this threat as an unintended benefit. I believe that its real target is to give religious individuals and organizations free rein to discriminate against women on religious grounds. Craft-store giant Hobby Lobby recently lost a Supreme Court appeal in which it sought to defy, on explicitly religious grounds, a federal mandate to provide insurance that covers emergency contraceptives. Closer to home, Catholic hospital chains in Kentucky and elsewhere have clashed with state and federal governments over their desire to deny their employees (whether Catholic or not) access to contraception. This bill lends an additional shield for Kentucky organizations who would seek to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

    I can’t also help but think that some religious organizations would welcome an additional shield from being held liable for their internal cultures of abuse, exploitation, and oppression of women. A telling case in point: Louisville-based Sovereign Grace Ministries, an affiliation of conservative evangelical Christian congregations, is a defendant in a class-action lawsuit in Maryland brought by several plaintiffs who allege rampant abuse. At Religion Dispatches, T.F. Charlton devotes a must-read essay (seriously, go read it) to the case in which she ties the allegations compellingly to their thoroughly patriarchal “theology of submission” to unquestioned (male) authority. In practice, this culture of submission to male religious authority allegedly led church officials to shun responsible intervention by psychological professionals in favor of “pastoral counseling” and to block reporting of abuse to the appropriate authorities.

    The Maryland lawsuit is just in its initial stages; the complaint was amended to add new allegations on January 11 of this year, and the defendants, including Sovereign Grace Ministries, have filed motions to dismiss. The fact that they have moved to dismiss is not especially remarkable– an initial motion to dismiss is standard fare in litigation, and the legal standard for granting them is typically rather high. What is remarkable, though, is that apparently it seeks to have the allegations dismissed on First Amendment grounds. I have not been able to locate a copy of SGM’s brief in support of its motion, but the second-hand reports I have been able to locate suggest that it seeks dismissal based on the alleged right of clergy to offer whatever pastoral advice they see fit without state interference.

    While legally using the First Amendment to avoid obligations to report criminal conduct is a stretch, and morally it is breathtakingly shameless, it is hard not to hear an echo in it of the language of House Bill 279, with its concern with shielding “sincerely held religious belief” from being “burdened” in its exercise by the state. In both cases religious people get the right to deflect interference with their oppression and abuse of others by claiming to do it in the name of their religion. The relevant legal framework may differ from case to case, but the overall message is clear: in the balance of legally recognized rights, the push is on to expand the power of religious (i.e. Christian) people to define their rights outward.

    I like to think that it doesn’t have to be like this; that we Christians might at last reconcile ourselves to the fact that we have no business running the world. Aldo Leopold, in A Sand County Almanac, describes his “land ethic” as involving a shift in humanity’s relationship to the land: “a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it.” Something similar needs to happen in the human community. Christianity has not been a particularly good “plain member and citizen” of the world. I am not sure what it looks like for Christians to assume this more humble role, but it certainly doesn’t look like Christians carving out a privileged legal niche for themselves. What a far cry we are from Jesus, the critic of empire executed as a criminal by the Roman state!

    UPDATE (March 7): I made two revisions/corrections to this post since initial publication.

    1) I incorrectly identified Berea as a Kentucky city with a fairness ordinance and left out Covington, which does have one. Berea’s mayor has mandated a non-discrimination policy for city employees by executive order that includes sexual orientation, but it does not have a city ordinance.

    2) A kind reader pointed out to me the sexism of the expression “man the barricades.” I acknowledge her point and have rephrased my point in a way that I hope avoids the sexist connotation that struggling for justice is an inherently male trait.

  • Your Religious Freedom, or My Back?

    Your Religious Freedom, or My Back?

    Photo Credit: kelby93 via Compfight cc

    It has been a painful seven days on a lot of fronts. On the national stage, as the politically engineered austerity crisis called sequestration unrolled (predictably) in Washington, cultural critics–well, some, at least— unraveled the sexist,  misogynistic, racist spectacle of last Sunday’s Oscars telecast, including The Onion’s outrageous, disgusting tweet–since deleted and apologized for– calling Quvenzhané Wallis a “c**t,” and the sad spectacle of seeing so many white folks lining up to defend it, or keep studious silence. As Tressie McMillam Cottom put it, in writing of the reaction, or lack thereof, of mainstream white feminists, “If [Quvenzhané] doesn’t look like people you care about, I have to wonder where your give-a-damn cuts off.”

    I have to wonder, too. How does one become the sort of person who is not only unmoved by seeing a little girl called that word, but whose sense of humor somehow depends on the supposed right of overwhelmingly white male comedians to demand that she, and other people like her, be OK with it? How does that get to be the expression of some sort of high-minded principle? Why is your joke more important than their humanity?

    Back here in Kentucky, something similar happened that didn’t involve race but that cut deeply for me. I am writing about it because I want to call my fellow Kentuckians to action, and my friends outside Kentucky to awareness.

    The Kentucky House of Representatives yesterday passed, by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 82-7, House Bill 279, a so-called “religious freedom” bill. In its present form, it would allow “persons” (I assume this includes artificial persons like corporations) the right to act with minimal government interference, so long as they can cite a “sincerely held religious belief.” In form and effect, and likely also in intent, this bill threatens to gut local civil rights protections in Kentucky based on gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity– protections like Louisville’s Fairness Ordinance. It is a stunning and shocking development for all of the people who for over twenty years have fought hard for the basic human rights of all people in Kentucky.

    It also hits close to home for me, a queer man. If the bill becomes law–the Senate has yet to vote on it, and the governor would have to sign it– it could mean that I could lose my job, be denied housing, or be denied service in a restaurant, so long as the people who did these things cited a “sincerely held religious belief” for their actions. Of course, any of those things could happen–and do happen– even with existing law. This law would simply make it much more difficult for me to invoke civil rights protections to remedy the situation.

    But this bill is not just about LGBTQ folk, though, I don’t think. I am no constitutional lawyer, but to my amateur eye the bill looks to be drafted broadly enough to invalidate civil rights protections against gender-based discrimination as well, so long as the perpetrators cite “sincerely held religious belief.” This bill is very likely bad for women, too.

    Please understand that I am a firm believer in religious freedom. But this bill is a travesty. Let’s be clear: in practice I guarantee that the “sincerely held religious beliefs” legislators want to shield most are evangelical Christian ones. I say this as someone who was born and raised in rural Kentucky, who went to a historically Baptist college here, and has lived in Louisville since 2002. Outside Louisville, where the bulk of the support for HB 279 can be found, evangelical Christianity predominates without question, especially among the class of people most likely to get elected to the Kentucky House or Senate.

    I am a Christian and churchgoer. As such, I feel a certain liberty to speak my mind to, and of, my fellow believers. The faith I struggle to practice is one of radical love and acceptance; of redemption and integrity; of struggle with hard truths; of love that will not let me go, that triumphs even over death. It ain’t easy, and I fall short a lot. I depend on a lot of help and a lot of generous criticism from other people.

    But the faith I practice is not the “belief” this bill seeks to protect. I barely recognize the traces of that faith in the words and actions of this bill and its advocates. The faith this law seeks to protect has precious little to do with following the way of the cross. It is instead one in which comfortable, powerful people get to deny the rights of human beings– their own neighbors, their sons and daughters– out of a putatively “sincere” adherence to a proposition. It enshrines in the law the principle that these “religious” people have to be shielded, like children, from having to face the fact that the real content of their “belief,” their washing their hands clean of others’ humanity and holding fast to their propositions, amounts to the oppression of actual people. It is an irresponsible, self-indulgent version of belief, one that gets used routinely to justify all manner of discrimination and abuse yet shield the perpetrators from the reality of their own actions. With staggering irony (and, I would argue, ample quantities of projection), it is these selfsame people who routinely assign themselves the privilege of lecturing everyone else on how their own problems are due to their lack of responsibility.

    If your belief is so flimsy as to require protection from the principalities and powers to shield it from ethical encounters with other human beings, how on earth is it a testimony to the Christ of Easter? To the one who we proclaim took solidarity with his fellow humans all the way to death on a cross and rose triumphant?

    I know I am taking a pretty harsh line here. Correct me if correction is needed. But whatever you do, do not tell me that I am overreacting or making this “too personal.” This is personal for me, even if it isn’t for you. The “beliefs” of a lot of powerful people in Kentucky mean, in practice, that I have to watch my back, and if this law passes, the state takes the side of their “belief” over my back.

    If I don’t get to take this personally, what do I get to take personally? What do I get to be angry about?

    If I don’t speak out on behalf of myself and my other brothers and sisters who lose under this law, what does that make me?

    If power seeks to deprive us of everything down to our voices, what else are we supposed to do but raise them?

    I hope my give-a-damn extends further than just my own back– further than just to people who look like me and think like me. I still have a lot more to say–and a lot more work to do– around issues of race and about listening to the voices of women of color in particular. But If my give-a-damn cuts off here, with what is going on right here in my own back yard, it cuts off entirely.

    If you live in Kentucky and you care about me, about other LGBTQ Kentuckians, and about women, please call (800) 372-7181 and leave a message for your Senator (don’t know who your Senator is? Check here), for Senate President Robert Stivers (R-District 25), and for the Senate Leadership asking them to vote “no” on HB 279 unless it is amended so as to keep it from invalidating existing civil rights laws and protections.

    If you do not live in Kentucky, please publicize this issue through your social networks. Read up on similar efforts in other states; similar measures to advance “religious freedom” are an emerging tactic of those who oppose equality. There may be similar legislation afoot where you live.

    No matter what happens, may God have mercy upon us all.