THIS is Stephen Harper

Typically I'll write a blog, or I'll create a video. Guess which one this is!

thump (n): The muffled sound produced by or as if by a blow with a blunt object

It seems that there are people in this world who believe that if they adjust or reinterpret translations of the Holy Bible that they will be able to beat those people over the head who are disinterested in what it says. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (King James Version) reads as follows:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Assuming the words are accurate, let's examine Leviticus. Now, based on the film The Ten Commandments (or so it seems), many believe that God spoke only to Moses through the burning bush or when giving him the Torah on Mount Sinai. The Jewish faith tells us that Moses was but one leader amongst a nation of Jews who heard the word of God. Christian religions are based on the Old Testament (or Jewish Bible) and then the New Testament(s) that came after the birth of Jesus Christ – yet there is disagreement on who heard the voice of God. Now where were we...

In the King James Bible, 18 Leviticus 22 is translated: "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination." More contemporary translations have broadened both the scope and interpretation of the statement by the gender neutral statement that homosexuality (rather than the implied sexual activity of men and heterosexual men) is an abomination. Of course, this statement is preceded by a long dissertation on your father being the only person allowed to see each and every female member of his family naked. In fact, it seems the only women he can't take a naked gander at is his daughter-in-law. Presumably because she is your wife and her nudity is for your eyes only. Also your daughter and any other female in the family save for your own daughter-in-law.

Now, if you follow EVERY line related to human relationships then men are permitted, and encouraged, to have as many wives as they want. So an alternate interpretation is to only have ONE male partner, and many female partners because you would not be lying with women as you laid with men since your numbers are different. It just goes to show that translating ancient Aramaic is open to everyone, though it is clearly not an exact science. Of course, you should also know the history of the "scripture" you adhere to with such steadfast certainty. Society has changed in the last 5000 years of recorded (recorded, remembered, or invented?) history. Luckily, its rules have not.

According to 18 Leviticus 29, “Whoever commits such abominations shall be cut off from among their people.” We still do that one. Check out the statistics on today's prison populations. And in 19 Leviticus 15, “You shall do no injustice in judgment” we clearly have a perfect system of laws and a perfect system of jurisprudence. Innocent people have never been sentenced to prison and the state of prisons is perfectly humane. Right? And today we are free to marry multiple wives. Women who are unfaithful are still ritually slaughtered while men who are unfaithful aren't really unfaithful at all. Polygamy is endorsed by our laws. Isn't it?

But let's get back to the LGBTQ community. 19 Leviticus 19 tells us that “A garment of mixed linen and wool shall never come upon you.” Somehow, I don't think the gays invented poly-blends but I'd have to study fashion history. I wonder if Tim Gunn is busy?

20 Leviticus 13 is more difficult to refute. “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Here's my response. Don't lie. I try to be as honest as possible – with men and women. But, this is just a rehash of 18 Leviticus 22 with the added death penalty. See above.

This brings us, then, to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah: two cities destroyed by God when the angels he sent to investigate the cities were not turned over to the Sodomites by Lot who wished to “know them.” “Know them” has been reinterpreted in the New International Version to state “have sex with them.” It must be said that if I knew my neighbour was hosting a couple of divine beings in his house, I would want to meet them – to know them, if you will. It may be out of jealousy, or out of a selfish need to experience the divine. That being said, I don't think I would be particularly aroused by the idea. In fact, I would be scared out of my wits. Fear and sexual arousal rarely go hand in hand. Rarely.

Anyway, I am beginning to feel like this diatribe has been rather biased in terms of gender. 1 Romans 26-7 states that “God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” While it mentions women being contrary to the natural order, it really only damns men with any specificity. And yet, these are men who refuse to believe Paul, an apostle of Christ, preached the word of God with any authority. They essentially said, “Paul, I know the word of God as well as you do.” Then they went about lusting after same sex partners. Well, if someone calls you an idiot there is little chance you'll speak well of them. It sounds like Paul's version of “That's so gay.”

Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Fundamentalists have used this statement to suggest that God sat down and wrote the Bible – or at least controlled the hands which wrote it down. And I quote: "Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Our sense of morality, and the metaphorical texts which permeate our understanding of divinity, is inspired by the divine. But if we follow the fundamentalist interpretation, the words are literal and unalterable. It is highly ironic that these same fundamentalists have revised the Bible according to their own contemporary belief structure almost generationally.

So, I, and others, have done your homework to ensure you are better armed to deal with the fundamentalists who seek conflict in order to further an agenda of hate and cruelty. Do with it as you will. I do urge you, however, not to seek the conflict. Simply be prepared to respond. If I have learned one lesson in this life, it is to let the offence initiate their own defeat. Remain grounded and focused and simply reorient and redirect the vitriol being spewed in your direction. Eventually, the offender will talk her/himself into a corner.

WTF?

What does it mean to be straight-looking or straight-acting? If a person is romantically interested in their same gender, can they ever be straight-anything?

Some might argue that the use of such terminology suggests a desire for a more masculine male or, perhaps, a more feminine female. Granted, some homosexual people don't fall into the stereotypes of man and woman, or masculine and feminine, that the media both idealizes and spoofs.

Let's look at the evolution of the most successful, gay-oriented network television shows of all time: Will & Grace. The title cast features a gay male. At first, there was a great deal of opposition to the idea until we met Will. He wasn't effeminate. His voice was even and deep. He walked like a man. He talked like a man. Obviously, he was a man. But according to whom?

As the series progressed, his wacky friend and neighbour Jack became an audience favourite. Jack was effeminate. His voice was uneven and higher pitched. His wrist was more than a little limp. And the audience loved him. And we loved his partner-in-crime, Karen – whose alcoholism and drug use arguably mirrored another stereotype of the gay community: if it isn't a sex partner, it may as well be a chemical dependency. According to the pre-Will & Grace mainstream media, the gay community was little more than a drug-induced harem of STI-infected sexual deviancy. Queer As Folk anyone?

But I've gotten sidetracked. As the series progressed, Will became more in touch with his gay self and so, too, did his mannerisms. He drank a bottle of water with his pinky extended. He squealed when he was excited. He wore women's jeans and sought out the perfect pair of shoes to go with his attaché. Will evolved into the publicly-embraced gay caricature that was epitomized by Jack.

His voice was still reasonably masculine - until he got excited. But the network found ways to being out the Jack in Will whenever they could. I surmise that the Nielsen families liked to see the gays they recognized - the evil, twisted gays. You see there is safety in familiarity. Even when that safety comes from a perceived danger.

If you are/desire a masculine male, say that. If you are/desire a feminine female, say that. But requesting or suggesting a "straight-acting/looking" person is little more than self-loathing and internalized homophobia. Because we must ask ourselves: what is "straight-acting/looking?" I know heterosexual men who care more about their hair and clothing than some homosexuals that I know. I also know some of the most feminine lesbians I ever expected to meet. I'll be honest, I fell victim to the expectations that the media stereotypes propagate. Are those heterosexuals who fall short of the male/female idealized archetypes "gay-looking/acting?" I believe their heterosexual romantic activities would negate that suggestion. Does a desire to appear well-groomed and maintained a sign of femininity? Or is it just a superficial desire to appear well-to-do? It is the connotation that an assumption of heterosexuality is the definition of manhood or womanhood.

Yes, there is a metrosexual term that came to bear during the Queer Eye For the Straight Guy craze a decade ago. Five gay men, whose pop cultural know-how turned around the dress, decor, and grooming of the typical jock, accomplished little else but suggesting to the world that feminine men are two things: gay and fabulous. But that is connecting fashion and cleanliness with sexual proclivity. And the two are almost entirely separate. As I recall, South Park commented on a gay resistance to the metrosexual appearance because it has caused gaydar malfunctions. However, this amusing episode that mocked the metrosexual still underscored the assumption that all gays are Jack/Mr. Garrison/Carson Kressley.

I suppose that a large part of my issue came from a moment when I was called a homophobe for speaking out against the overt sexualization of the gay stereotype (I had the audacity to suggest that a Pride parade should be more than drag queens and seniors in leather chaps). I am assumed to be heterosexual because I do not personify the gay stereotype. It is ironic that some of my students assume I am homosexual because I correct them when they use phrases such as "That's so gay" in the classroom. As an educator I want my students to see gays as more than stereotypes.

I support Pride because of what it started (a Civil Rights movement) and as what many communities have allowed it to become (an expression of unity, a reminder that the fight for equality for all isn't over, and a family-friendly reminder that the LGBTQ community is more than the bedroom). There is the need to define the other if only to define ourselves by our difference from the other. But the worst part of it is when that definition diminishes ourselves by assigning more importance to the other than to one's own uniqueness.

As I have recently been reminded, education is the foundation. This is my method. What's yours?

'Cause I gotta have faith?

The most insidious thing about hate speech is that it often contains just enough superficial truth for the audience to buy into it. I recently received a forwarded e-mail that I found particularly worrisome because it uses numbers and facts and twists their relevance to make it sound conspiratorial. The numbers, I might add, are wrong and the facts (though not scientific, they are certainly commonsensical) are true of any cultural presence in a community.

The email starts as follows...

"Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components."

Mistake #1: Islam is a religion. However, it tends to become a wider social force for the more strictly faithful. And this is true of any fundamental religious sect. We have seen the ideological differences between Judaism and Islam spawn a centuries old conflict over land (which has become little more than indoctrinated racism). By the way, Hasidic Jews share the facial hair social moré with fundamentalist Islam. And what about the Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? Selective memory often excludes balanced, unbiased facts.

You have to understand that groups like the Taliban use the fundamentals of the faith to take advantage of the under-educated faithful. This is why we see the coalition forces trying to build schools and housing which will support greater education for the youth in both urban and rural communities. Suicide bombers are often the children of impoverished families from outlying areas who are told that if they commit to the jihad (or holy war) and carry a bomb in God's name (can they ever verify that this is what God really wants before committing to the act?) then they will go to heaven with dozens of virgins and their families will be financially secure for decades. What then happens is the family gets a little bit of money (which is quickly spent, in part because they are promised more that never comes) and someone who doesn't vote and can't read (or otherwise contribute to the advancement of the Taliban regime) is wiped from their future responsibility while also achieving their goals without loss of their own lives. And then the family asks the same of another child in hopes of additional support for the rest of the family. And what dutiful child would deny their family's well-being?

Now, if you take the origins of the Big 3 (Judaism, Christianity, & Islam) back to their roots they are the same religion born of the same roots in the same part of the world. The only difference is the first people to carry it to their communities. One guy believes that women should be covered from head to toe so he adds that personal belief to the shared philosophies and tells his friends who share that opinion. Over time it is indoctrinated into the religion and, thus, society. The tenets of Islam are born. Another guy thinks that the guy who told him about these philosophies assumes the message could only have been delivered by God - made flesh by some miracle. Christianity comes to pass. And the same is true of Judaism. Maybe the bush burned, and a man sitting in the overheated desert heard a voice. Mirage or miracle? A few fundamental differences grow over time into a variety of ideological differences based on human, and society's, evolution over the centuries. I am reading a book called A History of God that explains it in much greater detail. Suffice it to say, religion has been used by different leaders to sustain authority and power since humanity began to walk upright.

RELIGION is why we are seeing increasing warfare in the middle east and less obvious conflict (look at the Vatican's latest propaganda - we believe in aliens, we're sorry for letting priests molest kids, lower attendance in church is a sign of the antichrist, etc, etc, etc.). Those people too afraid to take responsibility for their actions in life externalize that responsibility. "I'm poor because I'm a sinner." "If I kill others, God will ensure my place in heaven." But it is also people using those who have no access to education as pawns in their political will to rule the world. The Vatican has, quite literally, billions of dollars in cash and artwork and yet each parish (community of church attendees) has to pay for the priest that the Vatican moves to a new community after they were caught diddling the altar boys.

It is all about power. They spend money on their own needs (promote the Church in places that have no access to international media - tribal Africa, rural Central and South America - and limited access to education) and ignore the needs of the faithful. One can believe in God without clinging to someone else's definition of what God may or may not want us to do in our lives. We are on this earth to do one thing - leave it better than we received it. That's it, that's all. Life is designed to evolve. Fundamental religion is contrary to that because it refuses to evolve with our understanding of the very being that is humanity. The tirade about Islam (briefly quoted above) is one person's paranoia that their religion (you see this by their quantification of Islam in comparison to other world religions) may be losing its place in the world. Islam won't take over the world, although it may be one of the last ones to leave it.

We're seeing it kicking and screaming as we speak.

It's all in the delivery

   As an educator, I find myself increasingly concerned with the messages I convey to my students. Communication is more than speeches or lectures. It is engagement. It is posture, eye contact, and gestures. And it is a passion for the subject matter we are discussing. One thing that can make all the difference in engaging students is in how we, as educators, present our lessons. Every moment is a potential lesson. And every student - EVERY student - is a potential leader of our future world. 

   One of the challenges we face is ensuring that our curriculum is meeting the needs or tomorrow's leaders. Today we find our society changing ever more quickly with an increasingly globalized technocracy. Students are so tech-savvy that they have come to see the world through the rose-colored glasses of instant gratification. We reheat food in the microwave in less than a minute. We send and receive messages across the globe just as quickly. Technology that used to take up a room now fits on a desktop in our home office. And yet, the basics of education are essentially the same. So is this a problem, or an opportunity to evolve?

   As educators, we are left to wonder how we will impart a world's worth of information to students who don't want to have to sit still and read a book. Even if the information is presented in an online format, academia has become the bane of youth rather than the opportunity to improve oneself and progress toward a successful future. So the problem becomes finding a way to engage the online student. Teachers have to be well-versed in today's technology-driven multimedia tools. As educators, it is our responsibility to share in our students' capabilities as well as the social networking tools that drive much of their extra-curricular lives. Relating to students has to reach beyond knowing the popular magazines and television series. It is great if a teacher has read the latest fad-fiction - from Harry Potter to Twilight - but we must also be aware of how these fads are shaped and changed by worldwide online activities.

   We can read a novel. But that novel may be produced as a film. Our students will be passionately connected to the actors who portray the characters with whom they have made personal connections. A video game may extend or alter the existing storyline. In the case of Twilight, the novel may be rewritten from the perspective of another character and published as an online work. And what of the YouTube generation who share and exchange opinions through the video blogosphere? Although we see a great deal of subjectivity projected through the medium, there is also an increasing level of theoretical data being converted into something more media savvy for public consumption - a process that began with Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.

   The point is that we, rather than our students, must learn to embrace the evolution of information from the printed text to more dynamic deliveries. Our students are growing up in a digital world. Teachers must become more than discussion leaders. We must become entertainers to a certain extent. There are teachers who will stand at the front of the class and talk at their students. And while it is a student's responsible to be engaged in the educational process, it is a teacher's responsibility to make that process engaging.