Personal Politics

The first reaction for any half-reasonable person, when seeing something harmful and idiotic, is to try to combat it, often with the assumption that maybe they could convince the other person to change their view. Those a bit more experienced in the online debating field often understand that changing the other person’s view is a minor goal, if it ever is, and instead they focus on convincing the bystanders that they’re right (or just enjoy the act of debating).

However, this is not the best way to approach children online. Children are a unique situation as they are uniquely malleable. They are constantly changing in the long term. Even if during the debate they seem unrepentant, simply sowing the seeds of doubt in their beliefs is a great way to kick off introspection.

This is what happened to me, many years ago. I was arguing against same sex marriage, and I held many harmful, ill-based views. One person decided to take me aside and question me - a bit roughly, but not too hard. I remember trying to defend myself and coming up with the weakest, flimsiest points. Even though at the time I didn’t change my views, it was the start of self-evaluation. I realized that what I had heard from my parents and from my peers wasn’t necessarily accurate, and that I needed to form my own ideas, from the ground up.

Had this person came at me with the pure might and fury that I would’ve deserved had I been an adult, I would’ve probably just blocked them, or ignored them, or just became more cemented in my views. You don’t need to have a rational reason to be confident in your views; you just need to convince yourself that any non-sequitur makes sense, such as “that guy is a jerk so obviously his thoughts are inaccurate”.

So, please be gentle with the children, no matter how idiotic they are. Most children are idiots - wonderful idiots, but idiots nonetheless. They haven’t had time to grow out of that. Setting them on the right path for growth is far better.

Abortion has been a hot topic in the United States for a long, long time. Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which determined that there was a constitutional right to abortion, was decided in 1973. The debate raged before then, and it continues to rage today. William Pryor, who was one of Trump’s potential picks for Supreme Court nominee to replace Scalia, is a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.” It’s no secret most Republicans despise abortion also, with the constant attempts to prevent any federal money from going to Planned Parenthood. Abortion remains extremely controversial religiously, as well. It seems like a topic that’s impossible to talk about with those who have convictions, and for a good reason - it is framed in terms of murder.

If you are “pro-choice”, others claim you support murder; if you get an abortion, others claim you are a murderer. If you are “pro-life”, you claim others are murderers, or support murder. There is no room for negotiation here. It is never acceptable to murder, and as a consequence, it is never acceptable for an innocent person to be called a murderer, or an accomplice to one. The stakes are extremely high: If you are pro-choice and wrong, you supported the deaths of millions of innocent humans, and if you are pro-life and wrong, you falsely have accused millions of murder and over a hundred million more of supporting murder. These statistics are from the United States alone - the numbers skyrocket when you consider the consequences worldwide.

Because of this, if someone has convictions on abortion, there is no middle ground. There is no compromise that’s acceptable, and there is no dialogue to be had, so long as they are confident and consistent. To support abortion is to support murder, and to oppose abortion is to slander and reduce the impact of the word “murder”.

I believe abortion breaks the traditional liberal idea of discussion of ideas. Discussion is not the way forward. We’ve walked this path for decades and no resolution is in sight. Instead, it seems, the only way to decide it is propaganda and force. Whoever can convince the public best, and whoever can control the laws the best, will win - not whoever has the best reasoning.

In his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores how morals aren’t a rational thing. In large part, they’re basically inborn; in large part, they’re influenced by society. His work leads to a very important conclusion: We must agree to disagree on many things, because we will always disagree on many things. Otherwise, it’ll be perpetual ideological war, which is exactly what we’ve seen historically.

This isn’t to say that all ideologies are equal, not at all. Rather, it’s to say that we should be humble and remember that we’re much more limited than we like to think. Keep in mind the debates over slavery in the United States, which often came down to “Black people are inferior and should be subjugated” against “Black people are inferior and shouldn’t be subjugated”. While one was obviously more right, they’re both absolutely wrong, and it took the United States as a collective a long time to figure this out.

Article 10 of the Nashville Statement says the following:

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Beyond my views about acceptance of gay marriage, transgender identity, and general wording like this, I take serious issue about this refusal to agree to disagree.

Humans have inherent differences in morality, and even out of those that are not inherent they are in large part out of our control. Because of this, for all but the most foundational, important, and rational moral statements (for example, “don’t randomly kill people”) - including religious morals, as those are not immune from the biases people have - demanding others submit is fighting against human nature.

It is a denial of a fundamental aspect of humanity.

Antifa is the political title of a loose collection of people who adhere to various left-wing causes, including socialism, communism, anarchism, and general opposition to racism and fascism. It has its roots in fighting against the spread of fascism during WWII.  As fascism died out, so did antifa, but managed to stay alive without fascism. In the United States, this took the form of “Anti-Racist” groups. It wasn’t until the 2000s that the Anti-Racism groups started adopting the name Anti-Fascist, or antifa. However, it was Trump’s election that fueled the antifa we see today and talk about now. Indeed, being primarily composed of libertarians and anarchists with a penchant for direct action, antifa’s appeal and claim to moral legitimacy goes up as the government’s claim to moral legitimacy goes down - and given Trump’s approval ratings through his presidency thus far, and the perceived complicity of the legislature in Trump’s actions, the government’s claims to moral superiority are the weakest they’ve been in quite a while.

American Antifa has gotten attention for its direct action, including violence at times. The most famous of these instances is likely the Berkley protests that shut down Milo Yiannopolous’ planned speech. According to The Guardian,

“The gathering was boisterous but peaceful until about 6pm, when several dozen protesters wearing black face masks and carrying glittering flags arrived. The group quickly attacked the police barricades, then began shooting firecrackers at the building. Some used barricades to smash windows.“

Antifa protesters also become notably violent during the inauguration of Donald Trump. While they didn’t seem to target civilians, some did fight back against police officers, to the point where one officer went unconscious. What’s interesting about both these instances, and many other instances of violent antifa activities, is that they are often described as being black-clad. In some cases the journalist recognize the outfits and label it black bloc.

Black bloc is a protest method often used by protesters, often antifascists, dating back to the 1970s. Those in a black bloc dress in full black, often with hoods or helmets, sunglasses, and masks to conceal their identity. This makes it much harder for police to pin a crime on any given person because visually, anywhere from a dozen to hundreds of people matched the physical description and close enough to have committed the crime. These types of protesters were at Trump’s inauguration, and they are common in pictures of antifascists online.

All of this is relevant to the question: “Is antifa a terrorist group?” The answer is probably, no. The legal definition of domestic terrorism, contrary to the definition the petition gives, is “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.“ While any individual antifascist protester may have committed violence in an attempt to coerce the civilian population, and many have, antifa is highly decentralized at best, and more likely in between complete decentralization and various local autonomous groups. Antifa has no real organization to speak of, and as such, it can’t be a terrorist group. Alongside that, various antifascist protestors may decide violence is not warranted, while others do.

To designate antifa as a terrorist organization under these conditions would involve numerous problems, including figuring out who is and who isn’t antifa. Antifa is a political title, not an organization. There is a better alternative, however, for those who wish to curb violence from the more militant antifascists: make black bloc and related activities illegal. As of now, an attempt to do so is underway in the D.C. courts. Numerous protesters are beings charged with conspiracy to commit crimes for simply participating in the black bloc, even if they had not committed any crimes themselves. This is getting some pushback as it seems to be a new interpretation of an old law, with little to no legal precedent.

The principle is a stronger one than simply labeling antifa a terrorist organization, regardless. Whether through the legislature or the courts, if the goal is to crack down harder on leftist militancy, outlawing protest methods such as black bloc, which are intentionally designed to help make things harder on law enforcement, is far more efficient and legally viable than determining that everyone under the antifascist label is a terrorist.

In the big picture, trans issues being at the forefront of social discussions is a somewhat new thing. In 2015, Slate released an article titled “Conservative Christianity’s Discovery of Transgender Issues Worries Trans Christians“. It discusses how a group of self-described biblical counselors held a conference on “transgender confusion”. The results were not surprising; the article gives it the description of a “one-sided succession of rants against modernity and cultural change that made little or no attempt to address how religious congregations could go about welcoming individuals who are transgender and/or struggling with gender dysphoria.“ Since then, discussion has only picked up.

For example, the Church of England had visibly warmed up to trans people, going so far as to consider special services to mark gender transition. This predictably brought backlash along with it. Meanwhile, the twitter of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee, the social issues arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, regularly brings up transgender issues, and is currently advertising a book on the topic. On the flip side, the United Methodist Church recently commissioned a nonbinary deacon.

To truly understand this debate, we need to understand not just the arguments commonly brought up, but the relevant traditions within Christianity. It is no surprise that gender roles are prevalent within it. The two major ancient, apostolic churches (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) have never supported women within any of the major religious roles. Methodism was a pioneering group for women preachers within Protestantism, and they started as recently as 1761. Even then, complete gender equality in church roles within Methodism wasn’t achieved until 1956.

In terms of scripture, there seems to be clearly defined gender roles. Paul does a majority of the complementarianism, with writings such as Ephesian 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. While there is a lot of exegetical work (which I won’t spend time elaborating on here) that goes into interpreting these seemingly plain verses, some of which suggests gender complementarianism is a misinterpretation, the majority agrees that the Bible does mandate certain gender roles.

Lastly, the issue of sex, both the biological kind and the action, is fundamental to much Christian thought, even if most don’t even know about the important conclusions which have led to our present. A long time ago, a person known as Augustine came into the Christian fray. Augustine had some ideas, among the most notable being the doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine posited that sex and sexuality is intimately tied to the curse of sin, passed through mankind. This is why Adam and Eve were ashamed to be naked; this is why an erection, basically a prerequisite to procreation, is involuntary; and this is why all humanity is cursed for the sins of the first humans. Sex is inherently bad, in a way, according to Augustine. The reason Augustine’s thoughts are important is because he was an extremely important figure in the development of Catholic doctrine, and even if many tenants of his thought are disagreed with today, the consequences of his thought - for example, that sex is something which should not be talked about lightly - remain in conservative doctrine.

These three points - gender and tradition, gender and the Bible, and sexuality - are important to this topic, because modern gender theory throws it all into chaos. It challenges notions of innate differences and the connection of genitalia to psychology. When so much revolves around sexual biology, what happens when that is disturbed? What about when the existence of intersex people becomes a key point? It requires rethinking longstanding views, and to institutions based in preserving the heavenly truth once and for all delivered to mankind, that’s scary.

I understand the challenges it presents to conservative and moderate Christianity, and how it’s unnerving. Despite this, I still have huge criticisms with how it’s been handled. Even discarding the very obvious criticism of “they disagree with me”, the topic has been handled atrociously by major powers in Christianity, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic Church.

Appearances and reports suggest the Catholic Church has butchered transgender issues badly alongside LGBT issues in general. Right before the Catholic Church held the Synod on the Family in 2015, a priest by the name of Kryzysztof Charasma came out as gay and in a relationship with another man. This priest, who had formerly been a part of a major doctrinal organization within the Church and had written much on theology, was rapidly fired and defrocked (removed as a priest). He later was interviewed and had many interesting things to say about the inner workings on the Church.

“The reaction to gender really began after the UN conferences, after Cairo and Bejing. The Vatican responded to those conferences with panic and disorder...

“In this situation, you cannot reflect about reality, about this thing you refuse. Therefore, the reaction to gender studies is to reject... When Darwin wrote his book, the reaction of the Catholic Church and of Christianity as a whole was to reject it. The only strategy was prohibition – not objective study, reflection, or dialogue – of human thought, which the Church perceives as not coherent with the doctrines of the faith. The same thing is now happening with gender studies.”

There is much more like this in the interview. This confirms what I had suspected beforehand about Catholicism: it is either unable to handle new challenges to gender and sexuality, or refuses to. With all due respect to the beautiful and fascinating theology of Catholicism and the intelligence of the people who study it, it seems clear to me that in this field it has grown outdated and is now entering a state of petrification. It doesn’t even need to necessarily shift completely towards the more modern perspective to avoid this; it just has to actually engage with modern gender philosophy in an intellectually honest way. As of right now, this is not what the Catholic Church is doing.

While Catholicism is the larger and more influential group, the Southern Baptist Convention’s rhetoric is worse. While acknowledging the existence of gender variance and the scientific research on the subject, they pose opposition with essentially no real solutions. While Catholicism may be inherently neutral in basically refusing to engage, the discussion surrounding the resolution to condemn transgender identity involves complete anti-intellectualism, suggesting no longer classifying being transgender as a mental illness was political and not scientific. Other lovely descriptors involve “revolt”, “confusion”, and “rebellion”; as well as suggesting being transgender involves a lack of humility. It’s not just a refusal to engage - it’s harmful, anti-intellectual rhetoric that is explicitly aimed at the political scene. While it’s been a while since that resolution was passed, if the ERLC twitter is anything to go by, the SBC hasn’t gotten much better.

Many of my criticisms could be fixed through honest, open dialogue. Intellectual isolation does not lead to finding the truth, but to other-ing people, relegating them to the threat and not to someone trying just as hard to get through life as you are. In this exchange of ideas, people are humanized, and bad ideas are shown for what they truly are. Earlier it was mentioned how the Catholic Church uses intellectual isolation to handle trans issues. It’s been noted more than once that the SBC has a similar issue, although intentionality is more unclear. Simply put, they appeal only to their own “experts”, and anyone with an outside perspective is not included. This is always bound to lead to intellectual stagnation, and it has.

I believe there are Biblical ways to reconcile the concept of transgender people with the Bible without even touching topics like Biblical infallibility. The Bible does acknowledge, if passively, the existence of intersex people within the category of “eunuchs”, and in one case explicitly lays out that they have exception from normal rules. Given that modern scientific research suggests that trans people’s brains are literally the opposite gender, should it be true, it’s not a stretch to posit that they are the exception to the rule. I don’t believe that the idea that God forms everyone in the womb is particularly Biblically founded, given the only two relevant verses I know of are poetic. There is the traducian view of reproduction as well, which suggests that souls are created along with bodies in procreation, autonomously. There is more to my views which I may cover in a later post, but not here; the point is that there is a legitimate case to be made for conservative and moderate Christians that being trans is Biblically acceptable.