Why is this a historic moment?  Well, my parents moved from Burma to Los Angeles in 1969/1970 and met and married in the US.  For over forty years, they have never traveled alone on a plane — until now.  (Well, my mom did once pre-9/11).  The only other time they have traveled out of the country was for Betty and my wedding in 2008 — to Canada!  Mind you, both of them had to get new passports for our wedding.  That time, I had specifically flown to LA to escort them across the North American border.  This time, was on their own.

As parents, they have always been providers of basic necessities.  So after opening their bags at our home in Birmingham, my mom calls me upstairs to take random gifts they brought filling over HALF their checkin weight.  Chocolates, nuts, toothpaste, toilet paper (??) – simple, but deeply thoughtful gifts.  Here’s a shot of the unloaded things on my dining table, which I affectionately call the “Last Supper” table for its length (but, of course, is stunted by the amount of things on it right now):

First time in Europe, the next two weeks will include local Birmingham attractions, a trip to London to spend time with my dad’s cousin and Paris (yes, Paris).  My parents wanted to take a day trip to Rome too – but I vetoed that.  Next time, dad.  :)

It may look like China (and, indeed, Betty and I took pictures like this in Suzhou earlier this year), but this was in fact taken in San Marino, California at the new Chinese garden exhibit at the Huntington Library.

I recently came across two very interesting news articles that highlight the question of national pride for ethnic Chinese in countries outside of China:

• LA Times article about the celebration of the founding of communist China in Southern California.
• CBC article about the Chinese government funding a Chinese language course in the Greater Vancouver area of BC, Canada.

The question that I want to pose is: is it unpatriotic to the US (which I am a citizen) if I were to be proud of China (which is where my ethnic origins are) and its latest accomplishments?  This is something that seems to come up quite a bit (esp. if you read the seemingly racist comments by some readers of the CBC article).

In discussions about postmodernity, some people have talked about how we should recognise the fact that many of us have a “hyphenated identity.”  Meaning, not only am I an American, but I am a “Chinese-American.”  Or, perhaps, since my parents were born and raised in Burma, I am a “Chinese-Burmese-American.”  There seems to be some warrant to celebrating this “fragmentation” since there are multiple stories that inform who I am (and, sometimes, also confuses who I am).

Then in religious studies, there has been an ongoing discussion about the possibility of dual or multiple religious affiliation.  Some would say that I should not consider myself as a “Christian” but as having a multiple allegiance to Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism since all of these are part of who I am, whether I agree with it or not.

To be clear, I disagree with this second idea.  John Stackhouse has an interesting discussion on this in defining terms like “inclusivism,” but basically I believe the Bible is quite clear that God wants to have our full allegiance and does not like us mixing and matching to our liking.

So I return to the original question.  Can I be faithful to multiple nations at the same time?  I mean, China has done some pretty great things in the recent past (hey, let’s see London top the open ceremonies of the 2008 olympics!).  But there are also plenty of rotten things they have done too.  The same, of course, can be said of any nation like the US or the UK — no nation is perfect.  There’s the classic question: if the US and China were to go to war with one another, which side would you support?  Sure, there’s something to be said about a case-by-case scenario.  But blindly taking that question, I really don’t know how I would respond.

BBC reports that many in the UK also want this ban, claiming that it is “not British.” There is obviously a racist underpinning to such a statement, but I’m not even going to go there for now. What really unnerved me was what the journalist was implying about freedom of religion: “In a country [France] where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law, a parliamentary committee report ruled the veil as “contrary to the values of the republic’…” [2]

And now begins my rant.

My first issue is with how the BBC journalist defines separation of state and church religion (incidentally, is this also “enshrined as law” in the USA?). Freedom of religion assumes that everybody should have their own freedom to choose and follow any religion. It also assumes that no one religion should be exalted above any other. But if a government claims that any religious practice is “contrary” to its society’s values, then it should be outlawed (so, if your religion believes in cannibalism, the government can and must outlaw it). Effectively, there is an equating of this “doctrine” with a totalitarian system — one that assumes the one god to be worshipped is atheism. If what I believe and practice is contrary to what somebody else believes and practices, and this is true across the board, the only true answer is no belief or practice. All religions cancel each other out resulting in atheism.

My other big issue is with the fact that many Christians love this notion of freedom of religion and have a hatred for any society that does not practice it (e.g., China). First off, freedom of religion never existed before the founding of the USA. The British settlers who first traveled to the Americas were the Puritans — a group of Protestants that were fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England. So, when the country was formed, the doctrine of separation of church and state was established to mean the separation of denominationalism and state — the founding fathers did not want the government to have a state denomination. Secondly, Christianity is a religion that was birthed and grew out of a state of persecution. That’s why so many New Testament letters challenge the early Christians to not compromise their faiths in light of their suffering. Freedom of religion was never taught in the Bible. Thirdly, when many Christians argue for freedom of religion, what is actually desired is freedom of Christianity. Very few Christians fight for the “rights” of other religions. Unless they convert, of course.

So, how is the government to deal with religious pluralism? For starters, not by banning head coverings. That’s just ridiculous. Might as well outlaw any religious practice. But honestly, I have no clear answer.

So, since Betty and I have been here living in the motherland (England), I have been merrily driving around in our eternal blue Honda Civic without a license.  Well, without a proper UK license to be precise.  I can legally drive on my US license for the first year but have to go through the process to apply and test for a UK license if I want to drive anytime after that first year.

So this past week I decided I should go through the process and apply for my provisional license (yes, provisional).  Online they say that you need to mail in your passport and things but you can do everything in a post office and you don’t need to mail in your passport.  Also, I need to submit a picture signed by somebody who has known me for at least two years in the UK (that’s the British version of a notary), but, online, they say that if you haven’t lived in the country that long you can do it at the post office.  So, to the post office I went.

Well, at the post office they said that they don’t handle foreign passports and that I would have to mail things in.  Question: how can I mail it in if (1) I am going on holiday (American: vacation) in a few weeks and (2) I don’t have a signature on my photo.  I end up calling the government office and they say I don’t need a signature because I have a foreign passport (this information, of course, differs from their website) and the only possible way to get it faster is if I brought it in.  Easy enough?  No.

The office is in Swansea (American’s may think (1) swans live in ponds or seas? and (2) where is this said exotic land?).  The answer to the second question: it is in another country.  Ok, ok… Swansea is in the country of Wales (also part of the UK) but it is still far — about 3 hours drive. If things weren’t bad enough, I found out all this while Betty was on her way back from a night’s stay in Wales with a friend!

So, what am I going to do?  I am going to wait until Betty and I come back from our holiday (end of July), send in my passport, start taking driving lessons (yes, I know) and studying for my written test, wait until I get my provisional license back before taking my tests and then applying for my official license.  Oh, and all this in a month and a half before I am not allowed to use my US license.  Uhuh.  I’m sure this process will go smoothly.

Over the past three decades, I have lived for extended periods of time in three different countries.  Each, however, have been English speaking.  The first being my beloved U. S. of A. — my homeland and my place of birth.  The second being Canada, where I found my beloved Betty.  And now, I find myself in the third, England, where I have lost my beloved sanity in pursuit of a PhD.

Yet, as I have moved to these various places, I have learned that English is not the same in all three.  When I was in Canada, I resisted any pronunciations like “a-GAINST” instead of the American “a-genst” and “zed” instead of “zee.” As I wrote my thesis, my spelling maintained its American sensibilities.

But then coming to the UK, I have found myself needing to repeat myself a lot since I have been misunderstood so much (I thought American English was like the de facto standard!).  I have tried to resist the temptation to use British spelling (which, incidentally, is actually slightly different from Canadian spelling which is sort of a hybrid of American and British English).  But then, a few months ago I was applying for a bursary and was informed that my American spelling may be subtly seen unfavo(u)rably, though it should not really impact the results.  So, alas, I have changed my computer’s default language to British English now and am trying to get the hang of the Britishisms… <sigh>  My PhD thesis is going to have so many misspellings!

But then, when I moved to Canada in 2006, things changed.  Not only was the last Thursday of November a full day of classes, Thanksgiving in Canada was celebrated a month and a half earlier.  A few friends and I decided to still celebrate American Thanksgiving — in Canada.

The next year, of course, we did the same.  This year, I have moved again — this time with my bride and to England.  Though the number of Americans here are far fewer, we still celebrated God’s goodness!

What I think is very special for me is the fact that Thanksgiving is a time of family.  And, as I have lived away from home for many years, I appreciate the fact that God has given me surrogate families wherever I have gone.  I am truly thankful for God’s blessings.

Happy Thanksgiving!

For me, as an American living in the UK, I am pleased with the democratic process that has chosen Barack Hussein Obama to be the next president of the United States, the first black president.  I heard on CNN a report that many Iraqis believed Barack would never be voted in since all elections were rigged — I guess they were proven wrong.  But more than a race, the voice of America has chosen a replacement of a former administration, demanding a change to the previous regime.  Whether or not the change will be substantial enough, only time will tell.  But, the people demanded and the people were satisfied.

For me, as a Californian living in the UK, I am pleased with the democratic process that has voted for Proposition 8.  Preliminary counts say the result is “Yes”, though millions of absentee ballots still need to be counted — mine included.  However, Los Angeles County has already suspended the issue of same-sex marriage licenses.  This is due to a California State Constitutional provision that says a proposed amendment “shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election.”*  Again, seemingly, the democratic voice has spoken.

But is this the democracy we want?

Now, to be clear, I was a bit uneasy about this proposition (nevermind the fact that the wording is quite offensive). My Christian convictions believe same-sex marriage is against the teachings of the Bible.  But my Christian convictions are also wary about legislating Christian values.  I mean, while we are at it, let’s legislate that divorce is illegal.  We should also make extra-marital sex illegal.  (That was sarcasm, in case you did not catch it.)  Why don’t we do this?  I would suspect there are at least two very good reasons why we wouldn’t legislate these things: (1) many of us know people who have been involved or hurt by divorces or adulterous relationships and (2) we do not live in a theocracy.  For the first bit, I would suspect that many people who voted “Yes” on Prop 8 do not personally know many people of a homosexual orientation (I for one do not).  This makes it very hard for me to empathize with the challenges of “those people.”  In regards to the theocracy, the United States is a pluralistic society without a consistent, moral reference point.  This is why I voted “Yes” on Prop 8.  I did so because, within a democracy, the legal system is to be a reflection of the moral compass of the people — I am one of those people.  Obama has often cited Abraham Lincoln as describing a government that should be “of the people, by the people, for the people.”  Is this truly what we believe?

What frustrates me is when people are so dissatisfied with the democratic process that they choose to circumvent it.  Already, a multitude of lawsuits have been raised against various California counties who have chosen to uphold the new proposition.  Well, you knew a proposition was going to come out, why not write your own proposition that embraces same-sex marriage?  How many millions of dollars are going to be thrown into the judicial system to try to overturn this proposition (of course, we can really afford wasting money right now)?  This reminds me of the stupid recall election of 2003.  I remember reading a report that said there were more people who voted in the election to recall Gray Davis than those who voted in the election that put him in office Gray Davis (both for and against him).  If you didn’t exercise your right to vote the first time around, why do you want to exercise your right now?  Just because you don’t like the guy now?

Honestly, I believe the governments of California and America will eventually be recognizing same-sex marriages like they do in Canada and the United Kingdom (two places that are very dear to my heart).  That is simply reflective of the trends of Western morality.  But please, let us use the means of democracy we claim to believe in.

Okay, enough ranting and back work.