Tea Musings: God, Creation, and the Missing Third Gender

This time brought to you by a special blueberry/grapefruit Earl Grey blend called "Grandpa's Mix," bought as usual at Tehörnan in Umeå

I am absolutely not alone in this, I know, but I have to question, why is there an assumption that God inevitably and unquestionably has to be male? Apart from the references to God in the Bible as a male pronoun, where does the assumption come from?

The Bible is, after all, whether one believes in the message, the literal wording, or just the plain fact that the book exists, a manmade creation. Even the Bible says so. It is written by chosen people who are, in some way, conveying God's message to be spread to the people on Earth. It is easy for people to mix up pronouns. The debate around and the lack of a proper pronoun for the third gender tells us so.

In Genesis, we are told that God made us in his image. It says:

"Let us make man in our image... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

God is the Creator. God is what some people assume created Earth and everything on it. But woman is also Creator. Woman, through her possession of a womb, carries the same ability as God; she can create life. She is what nourishes, carries and sustains a life for (optimally) nine months before that child leaves the safe haven of the womb to face the world. If God is Creator and woman is Creator, then why, if God made us the image of 'him', is God referred to as a 'he'? Would it not make more sense to think of the Creator as a woman, the way she was so beautifully depicted in pagan religions? If God were a man, why did 'he' create the Paradise as a brilliant metaphor for the womb where Adam and Eve were nurtured and loved for a time before they were borne into the world?

Granted, woman needs man to create a life. Or rather, woman needs man's magic seed to create a life, but without the male species it would not be possible to create life (although science is at this very moment challenging those assumptions). Both woman and man are needed to create life. Woman and man together are the Creator. If man cannot create without woman, and woman cannot create without man, why is the Creator referred to as a 'he'? Would it not make more sense to think of God as of both genders, or perhaps genderless?

If God is omnipotent, as God is said to be, and can do everything that man and woman and all people accomplish together, would this not make God both man and woman and neither at the same time?

Religion as an institution has long discriminated against women and LGBTQ people, and even though it is getting better in some countries, it is still not good. It is far from good. The discrimination against everything but the narrow definition of male that Christianity subscribes to has its roots in history and is as such a culturally rooted phenomenon. The supremacy of the male is recorded in the Bible, but the Bible also follows the assumption that God is male, even though there is no evidence but a personal pronoun to prove this. The Bible is also written by human hands, with human minds and so also was exposed to human limits and flaws.

Human minds are limited by the language we use. If the language is not broad enough, there will be no room for interpretation or accurate definitions. Instead we are confined to the language that is at hand at the time of recording any event in history. If we think of the world in terms of two genders, it will be two genders that are present in our historical recordings. If the world today only has one country that has gone so far as to adopt a third gender, the assumption is that the world was hardly thinking in those terms at the creation of the Bible.

If God is both male and female and at the same time neither, is this discrimination against everything but the narrowly defined male a mistake due to the non-existence of the third gender at the times the Bible was written?

Condom Confusion

As most people will know, the Pope said a while back that it was not acceptable to use condoms for prevention of spreading of HIV, something he later changed his mind about and said that sure, it is okay to use a condom, as long as it is used for prevention of diseases. Most people did not doubt that this was a PR trick as a response to all the criticism that he had received in his unrealistic standpoint on HIV prevention.

Now, the Vatican has issued a clarification on the Pope's statement on condom use, confusing matters further. The Vatican, in response to conservative Catholics who worry, have issued another statement saying that it is still not acceptable to use condoms as a contraceptive. Contraceptives are not allowed to be used as contraceptives, but for the prevention of spreading STDs, how does this work?

If condoms are used solely not to contract a disease, it will inevitably be used as a contraceptive as well. Sex will be had for the sake of sex, not for the sake of procreation, and the condom involved will thus be used as a contraceptive. Even if you see it in the way that if someone has to have sex it is better to use a condom in order to prevent disease spreading, it is still a contraceptive unless it is a sexual act between two members of the same sex or perhaps sex with a prostitute, but this, according to the Vatican, is still morally wrong. The NYT article reads:

It said that condom use by a prostitute for disease prevention could not be considered a “lesser evil” because prostitution is “gravely immoral,” and that “an action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed.”

The whole matter is just really confusing, condoms cannot be used to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but to prevent disease, is it a matter of motivation, the reason for having sex? But regardless of how one twists it, even if the motivation is condom use for prevention of disease spreading, the sexual act is still not initiated to procreate, so the condom will also be used to prevent any possible pregnancies, because if a person who had HIV wanted a child but wanted to prevent spreading the disease to this child, he or she would probably adopt or try to conceive naturally which would mean a risk of spreading the disease. The whole condom use, according to the Pope and the Vatican is a lose - lose situation.

This all seems like a failed attempt to make the Pope more popular. The criticism for his statement on condoms and HIV, the one where he initially said it is unacceptable to use a condom even for the prevention of spreading the disease was so widely criticised, by Catholics, Protestants, atheists and other people alike, so he went out and condoned condom use in certain situations. This gave rise to a worry among conservative Catholics who were afraid that condoms would be used as a contraceptive against pregnancies, so the Vatican went out and 'clarified' the Pope's statement to appease these people, to solidify the Pope's popularity among that group, and inevitably contradicting what had just been said by the Pope.

The problem with this issue, the use of condoms, is that it is never going to be an issue where compromise can be made. Either you are for the use of condoms, or against it, because either you believe that sex should be had for procreation or pleasure or both. As long as there is even a tiny part of you that believes that sex should be used for pleasure, condoms will inevitably be used as contraception, because even if the major reason for using a condom is to prevent disease spreading, the purpose of the sex is pleasure. If you believe that sex is for procreation, there is no excuse for the use of a condom, because a condom will always partly be a contraceptive purposely used for the prevention of pregnancies, directly or indirectly. There is no compromise. Allowing people to use condoms as a disease prevention mechanism is to encourage, perhaps even condone, sex for other purposes than procreation, i.e. sex for pleasure. And this would open a whole can of worms, it would essentially say that prostitution can be acceptable as long as the circumstances are right, not to mention that it sexual promiscuity would also be accepted.

I suppose the only way to explain this confusing matter is that the Pope and the Vatican seems to think that sex for pleasure is acceptable, but there should not be any contraceptives involved unless there is a known disease in the picture. In that case, it seems that the evil of quenching potential life is lesser than the evil of sexually transmitted diseases. That, or just that the Pope is trying to approach a more mainstream audience and failing greatly.

The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

Tonight I finished The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama; a book I have been reading for at least a year, if not nearly two. The reason for this is not that it is incredibly dull or anything the like; it is simply because I have put it down every time my course work has been demanding too much time, and that has been often. Nevertheless, I have now finished it and I thought I should share my thoughts on it. Unfortunately I did not think to take notes on the first few chapters and as it was a very long time ago I read them I will not be referring specifically to them.

Obama is clearly trying to portray himself as a politician with experience, probably because of his young age and his actual relative inexperience for a presidential candidate. In the first part of the book talks about the intricacies of the power plays on Capitol Hill. A particular area of interest is where he discusses the role of lobbying in the American society, both clearly condemning the development of the practice where the people with the money have the most access to politicians, but also its value in that interest groups can truly represent minority interests of value.

When it comes to the economy, Obama is an outspoken supporter of FDR and Keynes, and so also an efficient welfare system (even though he may not use exactly those words), especially health care and education. The bleak picture Obama paints of America and the poorer part of the population reminds me of a pre-welfare Europe where status and blood (in the US - money) mattered more than you being a human being. He quite clearly believes a solid system of education will enable USA to become a more efficient and developed country, and key to this is better access to higher education.

It is interesting, because the chapter entitled 'Opportunity' (Chapter 5) is the chapter where it becomes very noticeable that Obama is trying to appease people not normally within his voter base. He glosses over uncomfortable questions and tries almost a bit too hard to meet halfway instead of perhaps trying the slightly more radical approach (not radical by European standards by far, however). Nevertheless, it seems Obama has a sensible approach to economy and worries about the large national debt, something that doesn't receive too much attention in political writings. Joseph Stiglitz, former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, deals with the topic in his book Making Globalization Work: The Next Steps to Global Justice, a book I would recommend.

Obama deals with religion in a very diplomatic way. He argues that it is dangerous not to admit what a great place it has in the US society, but he does not seem to think that it should be muddled with politics. It is a private matter, very important, but private. A big disappointment is when he starts talking about his mother and comes to the conclusion that she was incurably alone because she did not belong to any faith. While this will sit right with a lot of religious groups in America, it is still a very offensive generalisation, and one that may not be entirely correct. On morals, he states that he believes that it is these that bridge the American society, and while that may be a very nice notion, it becomes worrying when he writes "I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture" (p. 222). This is a statement on which, in his chapter on family (chapter 9) seems to contradict himself when he talks about the changing forms of family. This is precisely the type of balancing acts that can be found throughout the book where he attempts to appease both red and blue, but not always managing. Perhaps he thought that placing the two statements a couple of chapters apart would make most people not notice?

I have always been attracted by Obama's foreign policy and he did not disappoint me much in his chapter on the wider world, although I was a bit surprised to find out that he had, already in this book published 2006, stated that he believed an early withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was dangerous. The way media had portrayed him when he decided to deplore more troops to one place and slowly withdraw troops from the other was as a peace-loving, war-hating pacifist who voted against the war and would stop it at almost any cost.
A particular highlight was when he discussed IMF and World Bank policies and argued that they had been unsuccessful, implying that he does not himself believe in the neo-liberal approach with trickle-down policies and all that comes with it.
Further, the section where he explained why the US needs to co operate diplomatically and not charge violently through the world was simply beautiful. He argues that it is the duty of the US, as a world leader, to lead by example, that they cannot make demands of other nations without first adhering to principles themselves. It is a brilliant piece where he plays to people's patriotism and compassion and shows what makes him such a brilliant rhetoric.

Obviously I wish there would be an entire chapter on women, but I have to say that Obama does not skirt over the issue. He openly acknowledges that he has fallen into the gender role trap and expected his wife to bear the brunt of responsibility over the rearing of their children while he pursued his career. I am sure this appealed to a lot of women, but (there's always a but) there are several issues he neglects to address. As with many other articles and chapters on marriage, he argues that children need both a mother and a father. Himself being raised by a strong, single mother, knows how damaging it can be to a child not to have a father figure. Not once does he address the assumption of a heterosexual norm for the family. The two mommies or two daddies scenario is completely left out on the picture and not even fleetingly brushed upon. Neither does he address the socio-economic differences that usually lead children in a single parent family into hardship. The assumption is that if fathers start taking their responsibility, the world will automatically be a better place. If I am not mistaken I think he addresses the wage gap at one point, but it is nowhere satisfactory and there is no correlation made between this and the poverty of families headed by single mothers or a solution besides keeping the heteronormative nuclear family.
Besides, even after admitting to wanting his wife to sacrificing her career in favour for his, he does not reveal what conclusion they reached. There is not even a mention if they came to an agreement in the end or if he just kept to the same pattern and expected her to follow. Describing her as smart, beautiful and funny does not make up for that. That barely reaches the grade Satisfactory, president Obama!

The book is an interesting read, especially after Obama has actually been elected president. Although he is trying to appeal to both sides of the electorate simultaneously and sometimes seems to compromise on his own views because of it, he still comes across as more determined and steadfast than he has as president. Trying to achieve bipartisan co operation is all very well and a noble and important point to strive for, but if he does not end up achieving it before his term is up, he may just be remembered for being indecisive on issues splitting the party - compromising on health care, the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy etc.

Still, read it! This is arguably the most powerful person in the world, or at least one of them, and we need to be familiar with him.


Also, on a side note: can I recommend this article from the Edmonton Journal that reports on an anti-rape campaign that tries to place the focus and responsibility where it should lie - on the perpetrators. It is nice for once to see preventative methods that does not tell women not to dress in a certain way or not to walk in certain areas, implying that if they still do and end up being sexually assaulted, they are the ones to blame.
A fantastic book dealing with this issue, since we're on books tonight, is Joyce Carol Oates' novel Rape: A Love Story, a tragic but educative story. It is fiction, but very important.

The Religious Morals of Homosexuality in Society

The Guardian writes that two prospective foster parents' application was turned down due to their conservative view on homosexuality. Somehow, this seemed to them completely baffling. Their lawyer even stated, expressing that incredulity:

"The promotion of values is something that the court should be protecting, especially when these religious values are recognised as giving a moral framework to values in our country. No one is disputing that the duty of every public authority is to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child. It is conceivable if there was an extremely vulnerable adolescent practising [homosexual] child, who may be placed in a certain familial relationship that was disapproving, that may not be a sensible placement."

What seems to me here to be contradictory is the link between morals and certain values of religion and its good for society. While I completely agree that some fundamental Christian (and other religious) morals can be for the common good for the society, these are values and morals that pertain to our capability to coexist, not the opposite. Values like love, compassion and tolerance are all part of the New Testament and something that most Christians value dearly. One may even argue that a person is not a Christian unless they adhere to these values. After all, it is the forgiveness and inclusiveness of Christ that separate Christianity from the other religions. (I'm not saying here that other religions are intolerant or any such thing, but the couple in the text were Christians and so that religion is relevant here.)

Intolerance of what breaks from the social norm is ancient in Christianity and most of it belongs to the Old Testament. The New Testament and the tale of Christ is what, in my eyes, redeems Christianity as a religion somewhat. It speaks of love and compassion rather than intolerance and cruelty, and I would argue, contrary to what the couple's lawyer seems to believe, that this is the values and morals society wants to promote today. With the growth of liberalism, social liberalism in particular, civil rights have never been so much valued as today and an essential part to those, is the acceptance of people who strive from what is the norm. Granted, society is not exactly there yet in its acceptance of anything but the white male, but it is fighting to get there. To say that the Old Testament values such as no homosexuality, no sex outwith marriage and other restrictions is what society today uses as a framework to set the morals and values is tweaking the truth to say the least.

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of the lesbian, gay and bisexual rights charity Stonewall summed it up quite neatly when he expressed it thus:

"Too often in fostering cases nowadays it's forgotten that it is the interests of a child, and not the prejudices of a parent, that matter. Many Christian parents of gay children will be shocked at Mr and Mrs Johns's views, which are more redolent of the 19th century than the 21st."

Because of my genitals, the Vatican thinks I am less worthy

I have many problems with religion. We are in a constant battle, me and organised religion, over the individual rights that I feel is due me upon fulfilling the criterion of being a human being and that the church will not give me. We are in a constant battle over how leaders within world religions put men at a status above women and thus make a separation between the sexes. I have a problem with any organisation that does this, and I don't just single out religion in my dislikes. Normally, though, I leave religion alone. I am of the strong belief that anyone's belief is as important and valid as mine and that they have as much right to hold that belief as I am mine. But when it starts devaluing me as a human being and when we have a Pope that is downright dangerous to the wellbeing of humankind I have to speak my mind.

Today I encountered something that made my blood boil with rage. The Guardian reports that the Vatican has, in an attempt to show that they have taken the recent paedophilia scandal seriously, reformed a previous decree. In this new, reformed decree, the Vatican deemed paedophilia to be one of the gravest crimes that could be committed in the church. While they were reforming the document they also made sure to express how appalling they believe women's equality to be. Added to this decree dealing with the gravest crimes is the attempted ordination of women within the church.

If you did not understand this the first time, I will repeat: The Vatican has put paedophilia on par with female empowerment within the Catholic Church. If someone would attempt to ordinate me, they would perform a crime equal with that of sexually abusing children.

Not only is this tremendously insulting to women all over the world, it also diminishes their status as human beings. Women are not equal with men, they do not deserve the same rights or opportunities as men - they are less worth than men.

To believe that this is something that the Vatican means to be followed only within the clergy is naïve. If the Vatican were for equality (which they have proven over and over again that they are not) they would not separate men from women within the church or outside the church. This is nothing more than the highest powers on the earthly side of the Catholic church putting in writing that they view women as less worthy.

As the article (link above) also stated, this effectively means that any discussion for women's advancement or influence within the church or the Catholic community is closed. Anything else would be in right defiance of a decree from the Vatican, and even though I am not raised as a Catholic, I am sure that this means that it is somehow against the will of God.

When is enough enough? Dear politicians of the world; of my current home country Britain; and of my native country Sweden; of the European Union that unites us all and where the Vatican is geographically located - this I want to ask from you? Where were the outcries when a huge paedophilia scandal was brought up in the media? A scandal that, by the by, hardly was the first nor do I think it will be the last, despite all the PR efforts on the behalf of the Vatican.
Now the Vatican is claiming that I, and half of the world's population is less worthy than the other half. That I, somehow, because of my gender, am not allowed to enjoy the same rights as the other gender, and if someone tries to give me this right, it is equally as appalling as paedophilia. A foul political play expressed through an ecclesiastical decree to make it untouchable under the freedom of religion.

As a woman, as a voter, as an individual, as a human being and as a citizen I want to ask you what you plan to do about this?