Nobody’s Perfect

Summer is drawing to an end. As always, there’s been lots of weddings, not the least my own. And weddings are, like almost no other occasions, an opportunity to talk up someone (usually the bride, secondly the groom). There is no end to all the good deeds, traits, looks, experiences, or karma of the main person of the day. Nobody wanting come short, everyone tries to surpass each other in sucking up to… ahem, celebrating that particular couple. Which is all fine and well… if it were all true, that is.

The sad fact is, that while we may be happy on our wedding day, we are no more perfect than the day before. We still have our bad habits, our bad manners, our bad tempers, our bad hair days, and our bad breath. We honestly don’t believe all those compliments given in the mood of celebration.

Depending on how close we feel to the person of honour, we may choose to believe some of it. After all, a certain degree of affection does usually make us see everything in a better light. If not (or if we’re just in a cynical mood), we’re filled with an urge to lift the veil on the kind words and show them for the bull that they really are.

We should be nice to people. There’s no need to flash other peoples’ faults in their face. And I’m happy that nobody did that to me at my wedding. But seriously, guys, we’re not all that great people, any of us. So why keep on pretending? Weddings can be fun, especially dressing up and eating delicious food. But to be honest, I’m glad it’s over for now.

Olympic Gays

Tomorrow the second instalment of World Outgames begins here in Copenhagen. A mixture of sports and culture, this is a festival of all things queer. Homosexuals from around the world will visit our fair city and make the streets colourful. More than just a sports tournament, this is a celebration of diversity. And as such, I’m proud to live in a city this open. (In many other ways we’re somewhat closed, actually, but in my opinion this festival is a good thing.)

Some would doubtless criticise, and they might ask questions such as:

Why do gays need their own event? Can’t they just join the regular Olympic Games? To be short, no. In many countries being openly gay means condemnation, expulsion from professional sports or other careers, or even (capital) punishment. That’s not right.

You’re a Christian – shouldn’t you be condemning gays? It is true that the Bible opposes practised homosexuality. But much more vehemently, the Bible teaches love, acceptance and non-condemnation. Homosexuals and Christians are both minority groups, and as such we ought to have a common cause: the right to live as we wish, regardless of what the majority thinks. Instead of fighting each other, wouldn’t it be wonderful if gays and Christians could join hands in fighting for diversity and minority rights?

Are you gay? No, but if I were, would you think less of me? I hope not.

Happy Birthday, Dear Darwin

Today we celebrate the 200^th birthday of a man who changed the world. When Charles Darwin proposed the idea of evolution, biology was changed forever, and modern science today would not be the same without the foundations laid out by him. Not everything was correct, of course, but not everything was incorrect either.

I am a Christian. I believe God made this world and that he should be worshiped as supreme Creator. Tradition has it, then, that I should be bashing Darwin with all my might and exorcise the apostate teaching of evolution. But I will do no such thing. The war between creationists and evolutionists is clearly self-defeating, and I don’t want to represent either side.

Darwin’s bicentenary should be the occasion where Christians realised that Darwin is not the Antichrist, and evolution is not an enemy of the state. 2009 could be the year when relations between science and religion finally thawed, after too many centuries of misunderstanding each other. I doesn’t matter who cast the first stone. Someone should be the first to let down, and it might as well be the Christians.

Am I saying that creation is untrue? No. Am I saying that evolution is untrue? No. But they can’t both be true, can they? Yes, this is the path I would like to explore. In our postmodern world, different vantage points for viewing the world don’t have to be contradictory. Creation is religion, not science. Evolution is science, not religion. The two operate in different domains, and neither should try to be what it is not. But both should admit that the other may have some valid points from another view. Neither can claim to present a completely accurate picture of all of reality.

There are still issues to deal with, of course. How old is the Earth (but does it really matter)? Was there a literal six-day creation week, as told in Genesis? If so, there are conflicts with palaeontology. If not, what does it mean for, i.e. the teaching of the Sabbath?

Others have made similar calls. In Brian McLaren’s The Story We Find Ourselves In, the sequel to A New Kind of Christian, he explores finding faith in God through the marvels of evolution (and creation). And this post on The Spectrum Blog gives some good starting points for further reading. I will try to follow some of these, if I can find the time.

The Gospel of God’s love does not have to be in conflict with evolution. And telling the world about that love is more important than fighting a seemingly endless war against a perceived threat. It’s time to bury the hatchet. Happy Birthday.

Where Are You From?

It is a most fundamental question, and one of the first questions we ask when meeting someone new. (Second only to: what do you do?) But recently I have come to see that question as somewhat of a challenge. For some people it’s easy. They grew up in one spot, their family probably still lives there, and they call it home, even though they have since moved away. For others, like me, the world is not nearly as simple as that.

Born in Denmark with a Danish father and Norwegian mother, I usually felt mostly Danish. The four childhood years spent in the U.S., and subsequent moving around within Denmark didn’t inflict on my nationality, but I still never had one place to call home. The city of Aarhus was my home for nine years, but whenever people would ask me: where are you from? I would reply with a lengthy explanation, almost an excuse.

When my parents moved to Australia, Sydney became another home, as impossible as that may sound to people who have never lived in more than one country. I visited once each year and took pride whenever someone mistook me for being a ‘real’ Aussie. Never mind that this is a country of immigrants, and a lot of people here weren’t actually born here. But now, having been here for seven consecutive months, I still struggle with answering the question.

I live in Sydney, but I’m from Denmark. I’m here on a holiday, but I also have work and a home. I have a Danish passport and student ID card, but an Australian bank account and mobile phone number. When I try to get a student discount, I answer that I’m from Denmark. When clerks ask for my postcode, I reply 2076. So where am I from? Sydney? Denmark? Previously, one of my favourite answers has been: “Well, my passport says Denmark.” But while here, I’d rather be a Sydneysider, and while in Europe, I’ll settle for being a Dane.

What am I trying to say here? That geography isn’t everything. Where I am from does not answer the question of who I am. Identity is a whole lot more than that.

A Whole New World

This weekend, world leaders will convene in Washington for a global summit, with the primary agenda of fixing the financial system of the world, no less. If the right people show leadership, that might actually happen, but why stop there?

Britain’s PM, Gordon Brown, ambitiously envisioned a “new world order” this Monday, calling upon Europe and America to be “internationalist not protectionist, interventionist not neutral, progressive not reactive and forward-looking not frozen by events.” This echoes this article in Newsweek on November 3, calling for an actual world bank to replace the IMF. In times of crisis, the status quo is questioned, creating a window for change. Now is a time of crisis, but also a time of change.

Our current world order was in large part forged on the ruins of World War II. Most global or regional institutions that we take for granted today had their foundations laid in the aftermath of the war: the UN, IMF, WTO, EU, NATO, OECD. Not merely acronyms, but the framework of the world as we know it.

Changing these things is difficult. Once something is institutionalised, a certain inertia becomes ingrained, and changes are mostly incremental, bogged down by endless debate and compromise. The UN reform process or recent years’ failed attempts at modernising the EU are cases in point.

The problem is it’s a new world out there. Neither WWII nor the Cold War defines the challenges facing the world today. As Fareed Zakaria has repeatedly pointed out, power centres are shifting; globalisation is changing the face of the world, threatening to render the current world order obsolete if it’s not adapted to suit the 21^st century. In order to maintain and spread peace and prosperity globally, we need strong and functioning global institutions. And they need to be geared to the challenges of today, not those of 60 years ago.

Brown states that “uniquely in this global age, it is now in our power to come together so that 2008 is remembered not just for the failure of a financial crash that engulfed the world but for the resilience and optimism with which we faced the storm, endured it and prevailed.” It just might work. The election of Barack Obama in the U.S. is a sign that the world is ready for change. Obama cannot and will not change the world alone. But the momentum is there. This may be the time when world leaders finally step up the challenge of securing the future of the world.

United States of the World

Congratulations, Mr Obama. You have earned perhaps the hardest job in world at the moment, and you have a healthy majority of people believing you are up for it. I am one of them.

After the Cold War, the U.S. emerged as the world’s only superpower; the single most powerful force (in any respect) in the world. That this situation is gradually giving way to a multi-polar world with American influence waning is true to a degree. The rest of the world is rapidly catching up and increasingly playing along the rules which America invented. But the recent financial crisis has showed us that the need for a strong USA is as great as ever.

What the world needs is leadership from the leader of the world. Not callously wielded military might and arrogant attitudes. No, real leadership that reaches out and inspires. In John McCain’s loser speech he was very gracious and noble toward his opponent, but Obama obviously steals the show with his performance.

Obama’s victory speech nourishes the hope of many that he in fact can and will reach out. Toward the many different people that he mentions in his speech: “young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled”. He promises to enforce the ideal of America as a land of equal opportunities, regardless of race, colour, religion or sexuality.

Just as importantly, Obama reaches out to the world. A special mention of those in “forgotten corners of our world” (Australia might be one of them) is sympathetic, but also telling of the foreign policy to come. Of an American president who might finally realise that in order to win friends and influence people, it’s not a smart policy to be the class bully. Obama eloquently stated that “the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.”

What both the U.S. and the world needs now is a new vision and real change. No single person can do this alone. But Barack Obama might just be the man who can get the wheels into motion and help set the course for the world in this century.

Pluralism or Non-conformity?

A remark in a letter to the editor in a Danish newspaper caught my attention. The letter itself was fairly irrelevant in the global scheme of things, and it could easily be dismissed as yet another rant against change, playing on not-so-subtle xenophobic trends. But just shrugging off people’s ignorance makes little difference. Instead, I savour one remark as central for a greater struggle between ideologies.

The debater is arguing against building a mosque, and arguing that Islam is a threat to the Danish way of life. Consider this quote:

“I don’t believe in a multicultural society, I believe in a cultural society where the end result is that way in which we live here in Denmark.” (in JP-Århus, my translation)

Behind this statement lies a belief that there is one way of life in Denmark; that there is a single culture supposedly encompassing all people and streams of thought in this country.

It may have been like this earlier. At least until religious freedom was guaranteed in 1849, but also far into the 20^th century. Traditionally, Denmark has been influenced by a culture of fellowship and public service. Tellingly, the state church is actually the People’s Church, public school is the People’s School, and so on. This is not exactly socialism, although it may sound like it. But it is an idea that everyone, no matter their ideas and beliefs, can fit into one single, common system. This may work well, but for the obvious flaw: what if your belief is that you want to be a part of something else?

Postmodern people choose their own allegiances and connections. We don’t want to be forced into a certain way of doing things, and we don’t someone telling us what is normal, or what is Danish. Anyone holding a Danish passport and abiding by the law is leading a Danish way of life. There are some 5 million of us – that’s a lot of different people, and a lot of different opinions. I don’t mind letting people have other opinions, but they shouldn’t tell me what is Danish and what is not; what is true and what is false.

The larger issue here is (yet again) the clash between postmodernity and modernity. The quoted debater might as well have said, “I don’t believe in postmodernity, I believe in a society where one thing is true, and the rest is false.” Tough luck – the world’s not like that anymore, and it’s not for you to decide. Open your eyes to the 21^st century, and try embracing it instead. It’s not as bad as it looks.

Politics is not Easy

It should be clear by now that the current financial and economic crisis is no mere ripple, but a full-scale storm. Comparisons to the 1920’s are no longer muted, and a sense of morbid sensationalism enshrines the news cycle of worsening conditions.

It is not without some fascination that I have witnessed the Australian dollar lose almost 20% of its value against the Euro in a matter of weeks. I try to use my Danish credit card instead of Australian cash to make the most of it. This I can understand. But the intricate dealings of what shaped the current crisis, and even more so what do about it, are still somewhat out of my league. I’m not completely ignorant, of course, and I do my best to stay up-to-date and read views and opinions of the state of the world (a good Danish-language primer is this one, by economy professor Torben M. Andersen).

But apart from making a good conversation topic, the crisis has severely damaged any political ambitions I may still have harboured myself. Once I dreamed of being a minister, perhaps even the prime one. And I may have thought to myself: why are so many politicians economists? Well, to quote the Bill Clinton 1992 campaign, “it’s the economy, stupid”. In situations like these, politicians are those that must act and do what they can to contain the crisis and stave off total meltdown. And I would have no idea how to fix this. Yes, I could probably learn. But I am convinced of the importance of economic wisdom within any government.

No matter your political conviction, it seems clear that any politician in a high office should have a thorough understanding of how the world works; including, but not limited to, the economy.

Which is exactly why Sarah Palin is not ready to go to Washington.

Dear Enemies, Please Don’t Hate Us

Danish intelligence has warned our participants at the Olympic Games in Beijing that they are among those under the most threat by terrorists. The assessment has been made by Chinese authorities, which put Denmark in the same grade as the US and Israel.

This is not good news of course, and might serve as a wake-up call for Danes to some of the realities of the world today. Not so for handball and Olympic delegate player Kasper Hvidt, though, who comments:

“I must say that as a Dane I am shocked that we even want to be in the same league as such extreme countries. I have to say. It really saddens me. Not just because of my participation in the Games, but as a Danish citizen.” (In Berlingske Tidende, my translation)

How naïve. First of all, calling the US and Israel “extreme” is exaggeration at the least. But as if him being sad would make any difference. Nobody wants to be hated. People might speculate that the threat is due to our engagement in Afghanistan or the Mohammed cartoons, and that had we just minded our own business, none of this would have happened. But while the cartoons have obviously made a difference, the notion that the terrorist threat could be avoided is utterly wrong.

In the world of today there is no such thing as minding your own business. There is only closing or opening your eyes. To some, the mere existence of Denmark as a secular and liberal state, is an offence. These are the real extremists: jihadists and fundamentalists. Not the average Muslim or the majority of Muslims (if they were ever asked). But some people in Denmark need to open their eyes to the fact that certain people actually hate them for being Danish, and there’s absolutely nothing they can do about it. Except taking the necessary consequences and moving on.

Nudity is not Porn

We live in a so-called liberal, western society, but in some ways tolerance has been on the decline for the past decade or so. One thing is religion and freedom of speech, especially when it comes to criticising Islam. But in the quest for protecting values that we’re not even sure we share any longer, sometimes people trip over themselves in ridiculous attempts to preserve long-lost sanctities.

Even in multi-cultural, laid-back, easy-going Australia, where ‘wowsers’ were supposed to have disappeared years ago.

Case in point: the recent furore here in Sydney, which started with an art exhibition featuring images of nude women (gasp), some of which were children. The exhibition was closed down, and to highlight the issue of free speech, the magazine Art Monthly Australia featured a front cover depicting a naked girl on a painted backdrop (inset). And highlight it they have indeed – who said Jyllands-Posten? As if they had nothing else to do this has put politicians on edge, with even the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd criticising the picture.

Now whatever your opinion on it may be, the picture is clearly art, and clearly non-sexual. I am not a naturist myself, but I will agree with my friends who are on at least one thing: nudity in itself is not particularly sexual and usually not especially arousing. Denmark is one of the countries where the distinction has been made without too much fuss. Australia, apparently, has either not, or has retreated in recent years.

Freedom of speech includes art. Underage pornography should, of course, be banned. But this is not it. Get a grip.