Tilting against the biggest books of all time: the Bible and Quran

I'm taking a huge chance here.

 Last week, the news media were full of the story about York University in Toronto accommodating a male student’s request not to be put in a study group with women, on religious grounds.

The identity and specific religion of the student are protected under Canada’s privacy laws. Whatever religion it is, this case points to a long-standing problem.

I fully support freedom of religion, and will defend everyone’s right to believe and practice whatever they like, as long as it is not hurting anyone else nor infringing on any else’s rights. But it’s time we all stopped using religion or philosophy to excuse inexcusable behaviour and to justify unjustifiable ideas.

That’s right. I’m telling the world that I do not believe that you can use the Bible, the Quran, Mao’s little red book, the Communist Manifesto or any other book to defend your ideas. I just don’t accept the argument “because God says so.”

You can’t prove that, and the fact that you have a book that’s called “God’s words” does not constitute proof. I can write a book called “God’s Words, too.”

 

See?

The devil is in the details

In September, 2013, sociology professor J. Paul Grayson assigned a mandatory group assignment that required students to work together in person. One student, who was taking the course online, asked Dr. Grayson to exempt him because his religious beliefs forbade him from meeting in public with a group of women.

Dr. Grayson refused the request, and after discussion, the student agreed to participate in the assignment and completed it. However, the university administration ordered Dr. Grayson to accommodate the request.

To his credit, Dr. Grayson refused the administration’s order to accommodate this religious request. “What if I said my religion frowns upon my interacting with blacks?” he wrote. This accommodate would set a precedent, he said, and make him an “accessory to sexism.”

The public reaction was telling and uplifting. I could not find a single person or opinion in the media that supported the religious accommodation. And rightfully so.

(The Dean of Arts at York University defended his action partly because the student asked to be able to complete the assignment in another way, and another online student who was situated outside the country was allowed another way to do the work.)

The media reaction

Every political leader in the country decried the university’s accommodation order. Every opinion speaker and writer I heard or read likewise sided with the professor. Every online comment also supported the professor, and pointed out that this type of religious accommodation damages women’s sexual equality rights, hard-won over the last century.

This is an example where the right of freedom to practice your religion conflicts with gender equality rights. Many Canadian schools provide prayer rooms, segregated by gender, as part of their “religious accommodation.” Canadian institutions — funded by Canadian taxpayers — accommodate religious practices that defy the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — part of the law that supposedly governs those institutions.

Religious versus human rights

I repeat, I support your right to believe and practice any religion you like. But I do not support anyone’s attempt to infringe on anyone else’s human rights. And equality of women and men is one of the most important.

I thought it was telling that CBC radio’s program, The Current, introduced this story with a clip of televangelist Pat Robertson saying that according to the Bible, men and women are not equal.

According to this logic, religion justifies unequal treatment and unequal rights between the sexes. It says so in the Bible.

I’m not trying to criticize any particular religion here, nor am I trying to open a general debate about crime and punishment. All I want to do is to point out the hypocrisy of the argument that goes: “I must do this/I cannot do that because the Bible/Quran/whatever other text I hold out as justification for every ridiculous idea that comes out of my mouth, says so.”

Crazy idea icon by mehagopijiji.
Licenced under Creative Commons.

Otherwise rational people are afraid to criticize religious beliefs and practices because they fear being branded as intolerant, racist, or xenophobic. Well, I’m none of those things, but I will say this: I don’t accept the “It’s God’s will” argument, because the people who use it don’t accept it, either.

Nobody actually follows the entire Bible, even though they say they do. Not even Pat Robertson. How many people sacrifice cattle to God? Does Pat Robertson? Yet Leviticus, the Biblical book that instructs believers in how to live every minute of their lives, tells readers to sacrifice bulls just about every day.

Have you ever seen a televangelist making that kind of sacrifice, or indeed, any kind of sacrifice of his own property?

Do religious leaders in Canada promote the death penalty for adultery? How many religious people think that’s okay? Should Canada accommodate religious sects that want to put adulterers to death?

From Leviticus, Chapter 20. Source: ReadBibleOnline.net

The Bible also tells believers to put homosexuals to death. I’m pretty sure that Canadian law does not accommodate this practice.

The Quran tells a husband to beat his wife — mildly, yes, but definitely to use force — if she defies his authority. Would Canadian law accommodate this? Would US law? I hope not.

No one follows any scriptures absolutely. No one in Canada can put adulterers or homosexuals to death. If they do, the law will punish them.

The point is that even the most religious choose among obligations to follow, adhering to some and ignoring others. It’s a human decision.

Not a divine one.

Basing all your life actions on an ancient book is an unsupportable idea. Every religious person chooses the scriptures he or she will follow, because no one follows all of them. No one can.

I won’t argue whether the Bible and Quran were divinely inspired, because I cannot change anyone’s belief on that point in a blog. But how about if I add this: God told me to write this post.

Prove to me that He (or She, or Whatever) did not.

Québec’s proposed Charter of Values

Often, written words cause a major stir. The latest one worth a look is the Parti Québecois’ proposed Charter of Quebec Values.

The Quebec government has made a cursory attempt at providing the document in English and in French, but key parts, such as the introduction and the Message from the Ministre responsable des Institutions démocratiques et de la Participation citoyenne (Minister responsible for democratic institutions and citizenship), Bernard Drainville, are available only in French.

The Charter is not a basic statement of the society’s values; it’s a response to the growing and vocal Muslim community in Quebec. It begins with

“Les orientations proposées par le gouvernement ont pour objectif de poursuivre la démarche de séparation des religions et de l’État...”

“The objective of the ideas proposed by the government is the pursuit of the separation of religion and the State...”

Only in section 4 does the document get to what the proposed values are, and those are relatively brief: equality of women and men; and shared historical inheritance. These are the “common values” that the government says that Quebec’s people share.

Not much, really. Vague. Incomplete.

The proposed charter

The Charter proposal begins with a statement of concern:

Since 2006, a number of high-profile religious accommodation cases have given rise to a profound discomfort in Quebec. To maintain social peace and promote harmony, we must prevent tensions from growing.

Clear rules on religious accommodations will contribute to integration and social cohesion. They will benefit all Quebecers, including newcomers. We will be best served by a state that treats everyone the same.

I agree. Hey, if the state is obliged to treat everyone the same, why can’t people put up signs in English as big as in French?

I have to ask: why this, now? Quebec has been a remarkably open, if not completely tolerant society for decades. Montreal itself is almost as ethnically diverse as Toronto, the most ethnically diverse city in the world. Jews, Sikhs, Mennonites (and other religions, although I don’t know all that prescribe what people wear) and Muslims have been able wear clothes according to their religious convictions, without any problem.

This is not the first recent indication of the discomfort that some people, at least, in Quebec feel toward the growing Muslim community. A few years ago, the town of Hérouxville tried to ban Shariah law, and in 2005, the Quebec Assembly voted unanimously against allowing Sharia law in civil cases.

And who can forget the Quebec government’s unfortunate guide for immigrants that advised against honour killing and cooking of smelly foods?

I think there are two forces at work:

First, the dominant French-Canadian, French-speaking, white and nominally Catholic culture in Quebec has faded, replaced not only by the secular French-speaking and arguably slightly multi-ethnic culture that the government insists exists, but a more diverse culture. The “Quebecois” identity envisioned by the separatists from the 60s through the 80s (let’s face it, separatism stopped being cool by 1970), the identity supposedly protected by Bill 101, has mostly faded, especially in Montreal.

The other force is the resurgence of religion in daily life, especially among Muslims. The younger generation of Muslims is more observant of the outward aspects of their religion, including clothing, than before. This coupled with their increasing numbers means that Quebecers, and all Canadians, see more women and girls in obvious religious garb.

Backlash

Half of Quebec, including intellectuals, people of just about every religion represented in the province, and half of the separatists oppose the proposal.

What were they thinking?

That’s to be expected. What’s surprising is that the proponents of the Charter seemed totally umprepared for the backlash, as if they can’t understand why, for example, a Jewish prosecutor object if he would no longer be allowed to wear a yarmulke if he wanted to in court; or why a Sikh doctor should protest if he were disallowed from wearing a turban during hospital rounds or consultations in a CLSC clinic.

Whom are they hurting? Even the most strident believer in the PQ cannot believe that the fact that a woman wears a scarf on her head would cause someone else to change religions. “Oh, that is SUCH a nice scarf, I want one! I’ll even change religions so that I can wear it!”

No, the separatists cannot believe that.

I understand the other arguments: that Quebec is trying to protect its culture. But culture is a living thing, and that means it changes all the time. If its outward form is different from what political leaders remember from their childhood, they’ll just have to suck it up. Enforcing cultural norms has never worked and it isn’t going to start working now.

Is the charter fair?

To be frank, the proposed charter is discriminatory. It developed in response to a particular group, and affects religious minorities unfairly. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else, why shouldn’t a woman wear a scarf on her head? In a free society like Canada, she should have that right as an equal citizen. Yes, she should also be protected against abuse from anyone if she decides not to wear the scarf, too.

Just to be clear, I don't think that anyone should be allowed to wear clothing that puts themselves or anyone else in danger. That's why I don't think that girls should wear a hijab on the soccer pitch or while doing any other sport - because there is a danger of choking. Similarly, no one should be allowed onto a construction site without a hard-hat. I don't care what your religion says about that.

It's amazing that this piece of cloth can cause so much trouble.

And to be frank, I also think that the hijab in particular is also discriminatory. I’m not an expert on Islam, but from what I understand, the hijab itself is not a requirement of Islam. It’s something that some people choose to wear, and there are plenty of upstanding Muslim women in the world who choose not to wear it.

And let’s remember that some Muslim women feel pressured, or are absolutely pressured, to cover their heads. Not following the dictates of their culture and their families has caused the deaths of many Muslim women around the world, including in Canada. Don’t forget the murders of Geeti, Sahar and Zeinab Shafia’s and Rona Amir Mohammad, in the name of “honour.” No, it wasn’t because they didn’t wear hijabs, or not only because of that, but it is part of the same pattern of enforcing culture.

Isn’t that what the PQ is trying to do?

I think that people should be allowed to wear such a scarf. Hell, if I wanted to wear one, I don’t think that anyone should prevent me from doing so. Of course, I expect to be criticized, to be thought of as crazy or at least of having very poor taste.

Speaking of bad taste... maybe
Richard Simmons should put
something on his head.

I have to admit, I think a religious prescription on clothing is backward. But it you feel it’s a mark of respect, by all means, do it. And no democratic government should prevent you from doing it.

The difference between evil and crazy

Photo of Anders Behring Breivik being sentenced in Norway courtesy CBC.ca.

Today, a Norwegian court found Anders Behring Breivik legally sane and sentenced him to up to 21 years in jail, and possibly for the rest of his life, for his bomb and shooting spree last year that killed 77 people.

The case was unusual in many ways, not least because the prosecution was arguing that Breivik, was insane. The defendant argued he was sane and was waging a war against what he described as a Muslim invasion of Europe.

I have thought about that difference for a long time: where is that dividing line between “insanity” and “evil”? So many actions and ideas can be ascribed either description.

The epitome of evil-doer in modern pop culture is the serial killer, who is usually portrayed as mentally ill in some way — sociopathological, missing something in his or her mentality that prevents most of us from acting out those dark ideas, or damaged somehow by childhood abuse.

In reality, it seems that finding someone criminally insane suggests that we can cure the offender. If only we can give the right treatment, we can reform the offender, prevent him or her from doing those terrible deeds.

But what about evil? Is it a disease that we can cure? And what is evil?

This is a tricky question, one that greater minds than mind have struggled with for millennia. The question isn’t made easier by the shifting definition of evil over time and across the world. At one time, burning people alive was perceived as a good act, one that protected communities from contamination by evil or devilish ideas. Today in most of the Western world, the opposite reaction, tolerance, is perceived as the moral one.

In many parts of the world, the freedom of expression that the West so strongly defends is opposed by community leaders as a terrible evil, one that leads to community fracturing and moral degradation. When those proponents point to pornography, it’s easy to see their side.

However, trying to understand why someone would espouse an idea or take actions that we consider evil can lead us back to the original quandary. How can someone sane commit something so obviously evil as Breivik? What is wrong with his mind that can cause him to think that killing teenagers is defence of a culture?

The words

The questions of what evil is, and what we can or should do about it, are rich grounds for writers. I could write stories about this from so many different angles (if I had the time, of course). Can evil be cured with the right psychological treatment? If we could somehow cure all insanities, would we eliminate the serial killer, the murderer for pleasure? Or would another shift in cultural mores bring back the days of gladiatorial combat to the death for the pleasure of audiences?