No, I'm not diving into the murky depths of a stem cell debate, but I'm having another moan about funding in Higher Education.
STEM, for the uninitiated, stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. All very worthy subjects which have borne studies with terribly practical applications. Excellent - I love a bit of practicality.
TheoDoReS is my utterly appalling acronym for the area in which I work: Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies. For the majority of the population, the second category has no practical application, other than providing someone who will bury you and will look after 'that nice church on the corner that I'd love to have my wedding at because it would look lovely in the 'photos'.
Every single RS or Divinity student will have experienced the following scenario:
In taxi/talking to stranger/in doctor's surgery etc: What is it you do?
RS/Div: I'm a student.
Stranger: Ooh and what are you studying?
RS/Div: Religious Studies/Divinity (delete as applicable)
Stranger: What will you do with that then?!
(RS/Div feels that sinking sensation, because they know what is coming next)
Stranger: Are you going to become a priest/minister/nun/RE teacher?
(RS/Div attempts to strangle the scream creeping it's way up their throat)es
My point is that everyone assumes they know what these subjects entail, and even consider themselves experts in your career path. Yes some will go on to be priests, ministers, nuns and RE teachers and these are all very worthy careers in themselves. But a defence of these is not why I'm ranting into the blogosphere.
My rant was sparked by this Guardian article,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/13/theology-crucial-academic-subject entitled "Theology is a Crucial Academic Subject".
Ooh, controversial.
I have issues with the way the writer has chosen to take the category 'Theology and Religious Studies' as one subject. I'm not going to get all Wiebe in your face about it, but Theology and Religious Studies are different subjects. That does not mean that we should deny the vital link between the two, for then we sound the death knell for both and the importance that they stand for.
But I'm going to get really controversial here.
Divinity should continue as an academic subject. But I don't think it is crucial, at least in it's current form.
If Divinity is to be considered crucial, in my opinion, it must begin to focus on issues which do have a practical, as well as spiritual application. To truly compete on a higher footing for funding, it needs to focus on the issues that are facing the world and Christians in particular today: looking at LGBT and women's theology, considering the ethics of greed in a corporate world and reflecting on where theology stands in a multicultural society.
Call me a heathen and shoot me down, but there is only so much we can consider when we look at Aquinas for example. Of course he has influenced the above topics, and we should consider this, but for goodness' sakes, if it ain't fresh then please get over the dead guys.
If only so Religious Studies isn't tainted with the same brush...
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
Burkas, Bin Bags and Bans
Banning the burqa, denying permission to mosques and particularly minarets... times are hard for proponents of religious freedom just now.
The notoriously secular France dealt a blow to 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' by banning religious symbols from schools, and are currently in the process of debating legislation which makes the wearing of any item which covers the face in public an offence. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8568000/8568024.stm) Way to go France. Of course neither of these have enforced bans only on Muslims - the first applied to all religions and the second includes motorcycle helmets etc, but the backlash against visible religious symbols is astonishing. I respect that French culture does involve the private and personal expression of religious belief, but the utterly appalling response of - "you're in France now, so you better adopt our ways" makes me MAD. The notion that what epitomises any culture was decided at a specific date and henceforth will remain completely stagnant is ludicrous. Culture adapts, adopts and changes. We should respect history and traditions, absolutely, but to entirely reject visible aspects of religious culture is plain silly.
My second complaint with the ban is of a more feminist nature, namely, that Muslim women particularly bear the brunt with an ongoing societal obsession with what women wear and what choice they have in the matter. This is not limited to Muslim women, in every women's daily life, they face criticisms about whether their clothes conform to 'fashion', align them with a subculture (e.g. 'goth'), what their clothes say about them (frumpy, slutty, ditzy) and even simple rules about what is 'female' clothing and what is 'male'. But I digress. The male-majority parliament sees fit to dictate what these women can and cannot wear in public. WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT?! This bunch of self-important muppets have declared themselves to be the arbiters of one of the most fundamentally personal choices a woman has. Ridiculous.
Finally, the notion that the French parliament can decide what a woman can and should choose in order to express her religious devotion makes my blood boil. Some have argued that the burqa is a tradition rather than a religious duty. This is true, but it does not mean that it is seen as extraneous by women themselves. I do love the end of the article linked above where it states that women are considering taking up the burqa in face of the ban!
Julie has also reminded me of the counterpoint to this debate - how 'Islamic' countries dictate the dress of all women. For the record, I disagree with this attitude as well, for the same reasons as stated above. I also take issue with women who have been declared provocative dressers leading men into temptation, which is commonly heard across the world. If I were a man, I'd be offended by the insinuation that I was so weak a flash of ankle left me outwith the control of my senses.
Homa Hoodfar wrote a fascinating article about the changing significance of the veil, where she asserts that the veil became 'Islamic' rather than 'Iranian' upon the arrival of the Crusaders. As the two groups embarked on propaganda campaigns, North African Muslims picked up on the Crusader's equation of the veil with Islam. In Iran, the Shah's modernist regime declared wearing the veil illegal, meaning that many women refused to leave their homes at all, declaring that they felt 'naked' without it. Particularly difficult was the issue of the hammam. Society expected these women to attend the hammam for their ablutions, and non-attendance signalled issues at home. For women who refused to be seen without their veil, what was previously an independent endeavour required the help of men. The Iranian revolution turned the tables on women once more, making it illegal to not wear a veil. I love the fact that protests against this were led by women who personally chose to wear the veil, but stood up for their rights to choose. Hoodfar even cites examples of women sneaking in via bin bags. I also love her wee story about the ultimate emasculating insult - women only need to veil in the company of non-related men and so taking their veil off in front of such a man during an argument signalled that she didn't think him man enough to require a veil. SNAP!
Anyhoo, sorry for digressing again!
In summary, I am not pro- nor anti-burqa, but I respect the place of Islam in culture and the choices of women in their religious devotions.
Switzerland duly responded with a ban on minarets: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8385069.stm) Basically, Islam is made up of fundamentalist terrorists out to eat your babies and allowing a Muslim to build a minaret is like serving your newborn in a dish of apple sauce.
Finally, the article which sparked off this magical mystery tour through the potted mind of Gemma: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10846716.
There have been protests at plans to build an Islamic centre (including a mosque) near the site of the 9/11 attacks. This interests me on a couple of levels: first, the obvious debate about the placing of the mosque, and secondly the way in with Ground Zero is being treated.
As for whether it is appropriate to build a Mosque on that site, I say yes. I understand why there is a debate, but for me it comes down to the fundamental issue that 9/11 wasn't Islamic. The perpetrators were not representing the majority of Muslims, their reasoning doesn't comply with Islamic doctrine and they have been roundly condemned, especially in America. Obviously I am not aware of the workings of the Cordoba Organization, but I imagine any extremism would have been picked up on by now. As such, I believe that the, frankly dangerous, equation of Islam and fundamentalism which underpins this debate is a non-argument and should be ignored.
But what really interested me was the way in which Ground Zero is described in this article. The muppet that is Sarah Palin described the plan as "an intolerable mistake on hallowed ground". The sanctification of sites of devastation is an interesting concept. In terms of being 'set apart' then Ground Zero does meet the generally accepted marker of sacred, but there is something ghoulish about it. Should we label Auschwitz a 'sacred' place, does this labelling reappropriate the scene for 'good'?
I'm unsure as to where I lie on it.
Anyway, apologies for the long and rambling nature of this post!
(Italics are edits - I forgot to write some of what I wanted to say)
The notoriously secular France dealt a blow to 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' by banning religious symbols from schools, and are currently in the process of debating legislation which makes the wearing of any item which covers the face in public an offence. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8568000/8568024.stm) Way to go France. Of course neither of these have enforced bans only on Muslims - the first applied to all religions and the second includes motorcycle helmets etc, but the backlash against visible religious symbols is astonishing. I respect that French culture does involve the private and personal expression of religious belief, but the utterly appalling response of - "you're in France now, so you better adopt our ways" makes me MAD. The notion that what epitomises any culture was decided at a specific date and henceforth will remain completely stagnant is ludicrous. Culture adapts, adopts and changes. We should respect history and traditions, absolutely, but to entirely reject visible aspects of religious culture is plain silly.
My second complaint with the ban is of a more feminist nature, namely, that Muslim women particularly bear the brunt with an ongoing societal obsession with what women wear and what choice they have in the matter. This is not limited to Muslim women, in every women's daily life, they face criticisms about whether their clothes conform to 'fashion', align them with a subculture (e.g. 'goth'), what their clothes say about them (frumpy, slutty, ditzy) and even simple rules about what is 'female' clothing and what is 'male'. But I digress. The male-majority parliament sees fit to dictate what these women can and cannot wear in public. WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT?! This bunch of self-important muppets have declared themselves to be the arbiters of one of the most fundamentally personal choices a woman has. Ridiculous.
Finally, the notion that the French parliament can decide what a woman can and should choose in order to express her religious devotion makes my blood boil. Some have argued that the burqa is a tradition rather than a religious duty. This is true, but it does not mean that it is seen as extraneous by women themselves. I do love the end of the article linked above where it states that women are considering taking up the burqa in face of the ban!
Julie has also reminded me of the counterpoint to this debate - how 'Islamic' countries dictate the dress of all women. For the record, I disagree with this attitude as well, for the same reasons as stated above. I also take issue with women who have been declared provocative dressers leading men into temptation, which is commonly heard across the world. If I were a man, I'd be offended by the insinuation that I was so weak a flash of ankle left me outwith the control of my senses.
Homa Hoodfar wrote a fascinating article about the changing significance of the veil, where she asserts that the veil became 'Islamic' rather than 'Iranian' upon the arrival of the Crusaders. As the two groups embarked on propaganda campaigns, North African Muslims picked up on the Crusader's equation of the veil with Islam. In Iran, the Shah's modernist regime declared wearing the veil illegal, meaning that many women refused to leave their homes at all, declaring that they felt 'naked' without it. Particularly difficult was the issue of the hammam. Society expected these women to attend the hammam for their ablutions, and non-attendance signalled issues at home. For women who refused to be seen without their veil, what was previously an independent endeavour required the help of men. The Iranian revolution turned the tables on women once more, making it illegal to not wear a veil. I love the fact that protests against this were led by women who personally chose to wear the veil, but stood up for their rights to choose. Hoodfar even cites examples of women sneaking in via bin bags. I also love her wee story about the ultimate emasculating insult - women only need to veil in the company of non-related men and so taking their veil off in front of such a man during an argument signalled that she didn't think him man enough to require a veil. SNAP!
Anyhoo, sorry for digressing again!
In summary, I am not pro- nor anti-burqa, but I respect the place of Islam in culture and the choices of women in their religious devotions.
Switzerland duly responded with a ban on minarets: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8385069.stm) Basically, Islam is made up of fundamentalist terrorists out to eat your babies and allowing a Muslim to build a minaret is like serving your newborn in a dish of apple sauce.
Finally, the article which sparked off this magical mystery tour through the potted mind of Gemma: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10846716.
There have been protests at plans to build an Islamic centre (including a mosque) near the site of the 9/11 attacks. This interests me on a couple of levels: first, the obvious debate about the placing of the mosque, and secondly the way in with Ground Zero is being treated.
As for whether it is appropriate to build a Mosque on that site, I say yes. I understand why there is a debate, but for me it comes down to the fundamental issue that 9/11 wasn't Islamic. The perpetrators were not representing the majority of Muslims, their reasoning doesn't comply with Islamic doctrine and they have been roundly condemned, especially in America. Obviously I am not aware of the workings of the Cordoba Organization, but I imagine any extremism would have been picked up on by now. As such, I believe that the, frankly dangerous, equation of Islam and fundamentalism which underpins this debate is a non-argument and should be ignored.
But what really interested me was the way in which Ground Zero is described in this article. The muppet that is Sarah Palin described the plan as "an intolerable mistake on hallowed ground". The sanctification of sites of devastation is an interesting concept. In terms of being 'set apart' then Ground Zero does meet the generally accepted marker of sacred, but there is something ghoulish about it. Should we label Auschwitz a 'sacred' place, does this labelling reappropriate the scene for 'good'?
I'm unsure as to where I lie on it.
Anyway, apologies for the long and rambling nature of this post!
(Italics are edits - I forgot to write some of what I wanted to say)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)