Tolerance, Acceptance and Diversity

I've been thinking a little lately about multiculturalism and what it means for people to tolerate others' beliefs. Baden and I have had a bit of a discussion with Sarah (in reply to her post about inter-denominational disagreements over same-sex marriage). I think we are both having trouble understanding how one can justify requiring other people to follow one's own moral rules.

Now, in some cases innocent people are getting hurt and for the state to forbid this doesn't require much explanation; that's just one of the jobs of the state, to protect its citizens from each other. But what about moral rules where it's not obvious that one person's actions are hurting someone else. I think in these cases a very good explanation is necessary. That explanation is what I'm waiting for from the anti-gay lobby.

It's not just same-sex marriage laws. Many people ask the same questions about drug prohibition. I don't think that is quite so difficult to argue for, it's pretty easy to see how drug abuse could cause big problems for people apart from the user. But I was finding it very difficult to grasp how the mere presence of same-sex couples could possibly be construed as a harm to devout Christians, or anyone else who doesn't care for homosexuality themselves. Then Sarah said something that I hadn't really though of, "I don't want my children to grow up in a society that thinks it is A-OK for women to sleep with women..." What she's saying is that she will be harmed by the mere recognition of same-sex unions. I can't see inside Sarah's head so maybe I just have to accept that this would cause her some sort of psychological harm.

It would be easy to launch into hyperbole and say that this argument could allow some racists to object to the mere presence of another race. That's going too far, same-sex marriage is a way of living that requires a choice (in a way that most homosexuals claim that their sexuality is not a choice) and government sanction. But I still can't see how this is more offensive than these couples being in de facto marriages. If anything, it's slightly closer to what most religions want, ie a stable and formalised relationship.

Maybe we should compare this to a slightly less provocative issue, like religious conversion. There are plenty of religions that don't try to convert others: Judaism and Hinduism are the best examples. It's actually pretty hard to get into Judaism because they believe themselves to be the chosen race; an Indian friend tells me that Hinduism is similar, that one is meant to be born into a caste.

Or a better example, that doesn't entail a wholesale change of faith: Many Muslim countries ban alcohol. In Saudi Arabia and Kuwait posession of alcohol can mean imprisonment or flogging. But in Qatar, the UAE and Bangladesh non-Muslim foreigners are allowed to consume alcohol. Iran and Pakistan allow their non-Muslim ethnic minorities to consume alcohol privately. (To be fair, I doubt that these countries would allow non-Muslims to have same-sex marriages. But clearly the argument is the same, so they should.)

I don't know that I'll get a satisfying answer but I would welcome comments on this question:
*What is it about some religions that makes so many of their followers want to inflict their rules on others? (And why do other religions not?)
*Is there a theological basis? Do they wish they were living in a theocratic state? (ie Have Christians forgotten Jesus' question about whose head it was on the coin?)
*Or do people just have a tendency to conflate their own lifestyle choices with what is morally right for everyone?

Undermining Howard on Same-Sex Marriage

Finally, John Howard's government is starting to turn on itself. Yesterday a Liberal (American readers, read "libertarian") senator, Gary Humphries voted against his own party to support gay marriage. Hurrah!

Actually, it doesn't mean much because there was Steve Fielding from the religious right Family First party to take his place. Sigh! People have finally come to realise that Howard has taken the party so far to the right that it doesn't deserve the name "Liberal" (even in the standard, non-American sense) but now they have the religious right bolstering them as a separate party.

Unsurprisingly, The Greens press-release is spot-on with my attitude; Kerry Nettle sounds as flabbergasted as me, "In the debate today the leader of the government in the Senate, Senator Minchin, failed to offer any reasonable explanation as to why the government was so determined to stop same sex couples from getting civil unions. The only explanation offered is that civil unions would 'undermine' marriage but they cannot explain how this would actually happen."

Yes, Kerry, exactly! How is it possible that merely knowing that there are two blokes living together next door can make you love your wife any less!? Homosexuality isn't illegal so it must be something about the two blokes next door having equal recognition in law that makes homophobes love their spouses less.

The other "argument" (not really an argument but sophistry) is that the institution needs to be defined. I'm yet to hear a good reason why the definition should be so narrow as to exclude same-sex couples. This just reminds me so much of the Catholic/Protestant divide that existed in Australia (and presumably many other multi-cultural countries) a few generations ago. Today we laugh at anecdotes of Catholic clergy telling Protestants that they were not really married (i.e. calling their children bastards) because they were not married in a Roman Catholic church! Just as most people no longer think of marriage as a religious sacrament and are happy to recognise civil unions as well as inter-denominational marriages, it will not be long before the accepted definition of marriage changes to accommodate many more couples.

UnAmerican Perspectives

In response to Sarah's question, the USA is in some ways better but in other ways worse.

It's hard to separate the state from the society, particularly when Americans (at least the ones I've met) are so well informed about their political history. But it seems to me that the state is geared towards being one of the most fair and accountable systems possible. This is particularly impressive given that the USA was the first republic of the modern era. I do admire things like having the three branches of government separate. But I don't like the way that this in fact concentrates so much power in the hands of the president.

I like that the courts are able to make such strong decisions in their interpretations of the law. The fact that circuit judges are elected still boggles my mind but I guess that's more democratic. I don't like the fact that the supreme court appointments are so politicised.

I like the congressional system about the same as parliament, that is to say that it would be made better with proportional representation to help break the dominance of the two main parties. (In this way congress is much worse than the Australian federal parliament.) I'm intrigued but undecided about the whole "registering as" process for elections. It could certainly help get voters thinking about issues if they are asked which party they identify with and this sense of identification could certainly help boost participation in the electoral process. (In Australia, where people have to go out of their way to join a party, membership is incredibly low and it's very hard to find volunteers to help in campaigning.)

Any non-Australians reading this will probably be surprised to hear that I think that voting should be compulsory. I don't think that this is a radical position, simply because I grew up with it. But I really do believe that it is a civic duty to vote. I was appalled to hear that the last presidential election was a record high, getting over 50% voter turnout. Likewise, I think preferential (instant run-off) voting is fairer, so that people who prefer minor parties aren't throwing their vote away. Without these two things most governments don't get true mandates. Getting 40% of the votes from a 40% turnout is not a mandate!

Now, what Sarah is waiting to hear -- religion. Separation of church and state is a terrific idea and Australia should adopt it. Yet I can't help but notice a small irony: Despite having an official separation, Americans are, on the whole, very religious. On arriving, I immediately noticed an excessive number of churches in my small rural town but more disturbing is "God Bless America" and "In God we Trust" all over official government stuff. This seemed to be flouting the separation but one of my professors explained that that's about government founding a single church and that "Ceremonial Deism" was deemed acceptable. The other side of the irony is that, in Australia, where the government allows scripture classes in public schools and even partly funds parochial private school, the people themselves are not nearly as religious. And, on the whole, religious Australians are far more moderate and accepting. Gay rights has a long way to go in Australia, as in most countries, but there's never been church groups picketting the funerals of AIDS victims. Protests outside abortion clinics are small and sedate. Creationism was unheard of until about 3 or 4 years ago when some American groups started exporting DVDs.

I will have much more to say about creationism in a couple of months because next semester I will be teaching a class called "Evolution, Religion and Society" and I am assured that there's always a couple of creationists. I'm not sure how it will go but I'm reminded of one of my professors when I was an undergrad in Sydney. He was American and in the class on the history of evolution, when he got the the short bit on neo-creationism he said, "This is why I like teaching in Australia, I know none of you are creationists who will want to challenge any of this."