Fish in New York Times

Today’s New York Times includes a link to the blog opinion piece by Stanley Fish called God Talk. I am a fan of Fish, and often have some piece of his in a pile on my desk waiting to be read, or waiting to be filed for reference in some currently unknown project.

What strikes me most today about the academy and the discussion on religion is how false much of it rings. Today’s discussion by Fish reminded me of a professional conference I once attended where they brought in a debate team for after lunch entertainment.

This was five years ago before much of the debate about gay marriage was settled, so as a topic it seemed provocative. However, the debate ended up being a debate over civil union versus marriage. It wasn’t much of a debate, because those that had given the topic had already decided that one of the two was the right answer.

Now I realize that collegiate debate doesn’t have a lot to do with the fleshing out of ideas, rather it’s about scoring points and judges. However, I think it is still and interesting example of where the institution of higher education gets many of these debates wrong.

Despite how you feel about gay marriage or any other hot button issue, the debate has to happen over the real conflict. The conflict is whether or not gay marriage is an option. The debate is pretty robust and over some key foundational concepts of what it means to be human, religious faith, psychology, law and a host of other disciplines. To start the debate somewhere other than at the core just doesn’t do much good. It alienates the University from those truly seeking answers.

I think Fish has some good thoughts in this piece, and I hope the debate about God and the meaning of life at Universities and elsewhere picks up steam and grows deeper. The answers to these questions shape every discipline.

Human Trafficking Thoughts

Every once in awhile an issue rises above political wrangling, personal ideology, and theoretical constructs because we can agree; this is just wrong. On Thursday this week I had such an experience at the University of St. Thomas Law Journal’s symposium on human trafficking. I also had the experience of being shamed, and that’s not a bad thing.

The symposium gave attendees a lot to think about, particularly from the remarks of Norma Ramos one of the cofounders of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. In discussing her rejection of the term “sex-worker” she asked the simple question when did sex become work, and do we have to live with the commoditization of everything? Is human sexuality something to be traded on and with? In her talk and as part of a panel later in the day Ramos draws clear lines between a “porn” culture, prostitution, human trafficking and abuses that I cannot even bring myself to write about.

This issue of ending the sex-trade in all of it forms really does rise above political points of view and gets at something we may have already lost, the dignity of each human being as a person. Norma Ramos is a card carrying liberal of great pride and accomplishment, but what I heard her talking about are the very things that the right should be caring about and talking more about. This is not an issue of first amendment, this is an issue where we look at the degradation of the individuals involved in the sex trade, and the devastation to the communities in which we live and we have to ask ourselves simply, “Is this something that any reasonable society should live with?” Again, Ramos makes a powerful point here. She took the examples of theft and murder, and pointed out that no society has ever said that theft and murder and going to happen so we should just figure out how to regulate these things.

It is a Christian point of view that looks at a society and cares for the most vulnerable, and here is a place where we are clearly failing miserably. Beyond just the Christian, for a long time people have been told that to speak up against pornography in any form is to be a prude, to reject a reasoned approach to life, and to infringe on the rights of others. Yesterday, Norma Ramos gave me permission to get over that.

I have two daughters, and when she gave the example of a parent holding a young child and the dreams that go through a parents head of what that child will become: doctor, lawyer, missionary, on that list no parent ever thinks “prostituted person”. So today I’m coming before my God and asking myself, why I would ever support or watch something that I would make me angry, sad, or disappointed in what I had accomplished as a parent if I see my child in it?

There is room for broad agreement on this issue. We have sold enough of our dignity. The solution for me personally is not in legislative action outlawing obscene material, it is the simple act of looking at movies, television shows, advertisements and the flood of media in my eyes and saying, that is someone’s child and a child of God.

Wrangling

Sometimes, often times, as Christians I think in the modern era we are focused on the wrong stuff. Professionally and personally I came into contact with two court cases that have added to that mental wrangling.

This week I had the opportunity to talk with someone legally connected to the partial birth abortion decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It basically upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. I won’t debate the facts of the case. However, I will point out that I read the opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court website and I will say that it is graphic and does make one rethink the theoretical nature of the debate. I will also say that it was seen as a victory for conservatives and in this case, conservative was closely tied to Christian conservatives.

In my expatriate state of Minnesota there has been a legal uproar over the possible installation of foot washing stations for Muslim students at the Minneapolis Technical and Community College. Again, without debating the merits the debate has largely centered on the term, “accommodation” and what is good for one religious group has to be provided for another. This time it is conservatives who seem to be blocking progress on this one and not making many friends in the Muslim community along the way.

Christians need to enter these debates thoughtfully. Clearly, Christ is on the side of life and since there is no other way than through Christ the foot washing stations are not Christian. However, what Christians need to be thoughtful about is how they use the courts and how they rely on the state as an entity.

I read this morning in Acts and I thought about how it was the persecution of the state that propelled the gospel into new areas, and I thought about how even Christ directed to give unto Caesar. Christians should be involved in the courts, politics, and other arenas. That is a great way for Christian to provide influence and leadership. However, Christ has to be bigger in our lives than our professions, no matter how noble those professions are. We must also be careful that we act in a way that promotes the justice that Christ himself promoted for all people in love so that they may see Christ in us and turn toward him. To what extent we as Christians let ourselves become a demographic, we do a disservice to the name of Jesus Christ and what he came to earth to do, which is to save individuals – not nations.