Ruminating

The Distribution of Wealth. What's your responsibility?

2006-12-03T12:37:00.000-08:00

This week I read a blog article written by Robert T. Miller in which he responds to Pope Benedict's claim that by changing how resources are allocated, hunger and poverty can be eliminated in the world because at the moment a privileged minority enjoys the most of the planet's resources. Miller analyzed statistics on aggregate gross domestic product across the globe over time and has discovered that nowadays countries are producing twelve times the goods and services they did 35 years ago; he argues that worldwide hunger is not a result of a stagnant amount of good and services that are allocated incorrectly, but uneven economic growth that results in those countries that consistently produce the most resources being the wealthiest. Miller claims that "the world economy is not rigged in favor of the rich nations" because those that produce more themselves experience greater economic growth over a shorter period of time and are therefore able to maintain that growth. Naturally, people that obtain wealth desire to hold on to it. While I believe it is the responsibility of nations that are well off and economic powerhouses to lessen the needs of the poor and help those countries that lack the ability to enter into the economic market, many poor countries do not have the conditions within their country to sustain economic growth. There are many countries, especially in Africa and the Middle East, that are not politically stable, lack honest political leadership, have citizens that abide by the law, engage in free trade, allow free flow of capital, and have a population willing to put forward the work to pull the country out of poverty. Strong leadership that is dedicated to improving the country economically is necessary for the country to stand a change in improving its economic stature. In placed like Zimbabwe where tyranny reigns, the possibility for economic growth is slim. So, if this truly explains why the poor countries are poor and the problem is of production and not distribution, what is a poor country to do? Miller does not offer an answer. In my opinion, if a poor country has strong, respectable leadership as well as some of the other qualities that foster economic growth, in order for it to get on the right path that would lead to sustained growth, wealthy countries need to provide initial assistance. If you're a rich country, look at a poor country that stands a chance at being economically sufficient as an investment - if a poor country succeeds in producing enough to sustain the country, bring it out of poverty, feed its citizens, and then produce a surplus that it can use to gain access into the world marker, the rich country that monetarily contributed automatically gains a new trading partner. However, rich countries are hard pressed to invest in countries that stand little change of using that money effectively. What does this have to do with religion? Are rich countries religiously obligated to help the poor and save the needy? If the Pope really does view the issue as a problem with distribution, how does he intend to solve it?

"What Women Want" was a great movie. This Conference was about "WHAT POWERFUL MUSLIM WOMEN WANT"

2006-11-26T21:16:00.000-08:00

In an article titled, “The Power of Muslim Women,” Dilshad D. Ali shares her thoughts and opinions on the first Women's Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equity Conference held by the American Society for Muslim Advancement. During the first session that involves Ingrid Mattson, the Islamic Society of North America's first women president, Ali admires Mattson's ability to answer controversial questions on the notion of women-led prayers in manner that does not result in a riotous response. She calls for Muslim feminists from the progressive camp and feminists from the moderate camp to see that different people practice Muslim differently and that differences do not need to cause division, but can be reconciled through an understanding that perfect agreement will never be met and mutual respect is paramount in situations like this. In my opinion, Mattson may be able to deflect a question because she doesn't want to start controversy, but she doesn't ever seem to answer a question or pose real solutions to help foster a greater understanding between the two camps and search for middle ground. “Agreeing to disagree” can keep fires from getting larger, but it does not put any out either. On the session addressing Muslim youth and what can be done to teach them about the Muslim tenants of love and tolerance, Sufi panelists that talked about meditation and calling children to emulate Sufi masters were dismissed as unrealistic. I agree with Fareena Alam that Muslim youth who are taught to be angry and join terrorist groups as a way to deal with their rage are not going to listen to any Sufi scholar and need stronger influencing voices to lead them on different paths. The women at this conference have their hands full and this is an extremely important issue for them to find a solution to because these children are the future of Islam and if they believe that terrorism is the answer to the problems in the world, there will never be peace. For the last two sessions of the conference, the women discussed how women go about doing ijtihad differently and how this results in some Muslim women not wearing hijab because they find they can be modest without having to cover their hair and other women abiding by the Qur'an and choosing to veil themselves, the inconsistencies in the Qur'an and how Muslims can interpret it differently, and the rape laws in Pakistan and how important it is for women to fight against ignorance, apathy, and opression. This conference was merely a stepping stone for what these powerful Muslim women have the potential to accomplish. I think the Muslim world is in dire need of a council like this that is comprised of women who are well educated and searching for answers to bring about positive change.

The Hagia Sophia

2006-11-26T21:13:00.000-08:00

After the somewhat recent misunderstanding of Pope Benedict's speech in September that angered the entire Muslim world, the Pope heads to the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, Turkey. The history of the Hagia Sophia is significant because what was once a grand religious church and then a mosque is now a museum that does not permit religious ceremonies within. Muslims are afraid that if the Pope prays in the Hagia Sophia, he is sending a political message as well as a Christian one and intends to make it a church again. I read an article on belief.net about 40 members of the Turkish nationalist party, the Great Unity Party, protesting Pope Benedict XVI's visit next week on the basis that he links violence with Islam and they refuse to accept any more insults to their faith. I think the Turks are reading too much into the Pope's visit and viewing what should be seen as an attempt by the Pope to gain a greater understanding of the Muslim world and extent a welcoming hand in an unnecessarily negative light. First of all, the Hagia Sophia has not been a powerful Christian Church since 1453 and I sincerely doubt the Pope has any desire to restore the museum to the place of worship it once was or exert political influence in the form of religious prayer. The Pope was apologetic after his speech in September that was interpreted by Muslims as a slap in the face and ignorance regarding the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad.

Schori takes a step forward for women

2006-11-05T20:38:00.000-08:00

For the first time in history, the U.S. Episcopal Church this weekend installed the first female presiding bishop in the Anglican Communion to serve as a leader of the church for the next 9 years. This move is significant not only because Schori is a female, but because she is theologically liberal. While the majority of the Anglican leaders support her installment, others are torn in their acceptance of her and several U.S. Dioceses refuse to be placed under her authority. By accepting the challenge of her new position, she places herself under the scrutiny of many watchful eyes that are curious how she will fulfill her duties. Her capacity for leadership is also an issue of question as she stands among a male-dominated circle within the Church. I think this is an important step made by the Episcopal Church and I admire and applaud its effort to move boldly into the 22^nd century by demonstrating that women have the ability to be just as effective leaders in the Church as men. With a shortage of priests, I believe the Catholic Church should look to the Episcopal Church as an example and begin the ordination of female priests. Women are just as much a part of the Church as men and therefore they should be afford the same opportunities to serve God and work within the Church. There is nothing inherently different about being female that makes a women less capable than a man to hold a leadership position.

A forum on religion and politics

2006-10-30T20:17:00.000-08:00

This weekend I listened to the first half of a forum, The Myth of a Christian Nation, given by Jim Wallis and Greg Boyd at Bethel University. The forum focused on the relationship between faith and politics in this day and age and how the political world can be a dangerous place for Christians to participate. They seek to emulate leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who were admired for their religious positions in a political world. Jim starts off by discussing what it means to be an evangelical and he shared some stories of conversion and how he hadn't been saved until the age of six. When he was 14, he saw racism in Detroit and questioned it. After he visited the black churches, he came to the understanding that racism is political and faith is personal. He claimed, “God is personal. God is personal but never private. This God wants relationship and knows everything about every one of us and wants a relationship any way, but the reason is to sign us up for God's purposes in the world.” He sees prophets as the the people who speak God's politics and he relates faith to politics by making a statement that Christians should stand up for those who cannot represent themselves. According to both Wallis and Boyd, God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat and faith should be separate from politics. Calling for prophetic politics, he wants religion to influence politics, but not the other way around. Global warming, taking care of those in poverty and affected by tragedies of natural disaster, and international genocide in Darfur are all religious problems as well as political. He understands politics as failing in solving all of the social problems that exist in this world and wants faith to take a stand. Greg began his part of the forum with the many areas in which Wallis and him agree, but he disagrees on many counts. He doesn't call for citizens to participate in God's politics, he calls for people to transform society on all levels. Politics is not the arena in which Boyd wants people to focus their efforts. Jesus is Boyd's example as someone who refused to work in the corrupt political world because he didn't trust politics. Boyd believes citizens can transform society through his actions of love and self-sacrifice. Both speakers had extremely interesting things to say. While I agree with Boyd that politics can be corrupt, they play such an integral role in shaping society and influencing citizens, I think positive social change that is spearheaded by the government and political leaders would touch and improve the lives of the greatest number of people. A prophet alone cannot stop a genocide, but a powerful government that believes in the sanctity of all human life can.

Trying to envision a Muslim pope

2006-10-22T11:06:00.000-07:00

Ted Olsen, writer for Christianity Today, discusses how experts in Western countries used to argue that Islamic countries need to be reformed in the same way Martin Luther brought about reform. They believed such a person would "dismiss the Qur'an as unscientific" and "bring Islam in line with Enlightenment values." Now, however, those same experts are arguing Islam needs a religious leader like a pope. In the Catholic church, there exists a hierarchy with the Pope at the top and below him cardinals, bishops, priests, and nuns, etc. A central religious figure that is a counterpart to the pope is necessary in the Muslim world to speak on behalf of the Muslim people and work diplomatically with Pope Benedict XVI and other religious leaders to promote free dialogue between differing people and work through differences and misunderstandings. Paul Krugman argues that before Islam needs to find common ground with the West, Muslims need to improve on carrying on respectful dialogue between themselves. Some religious westerners see problems with the position of the pope simply because his words are given a "prominence that is unbiblical and dangerous" and the entire world pays attention to what he has to say. I think it is an impossible demand upon Pope Benedict XVI to only speak about religious matters and to stay away from the political because or morality politics that combine the two. One would expect the Pope to speak on behalf of the Church on issues such as abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, and euthanasia because the Church holds very specific views about on these politically relevant cases. At the end of his article Olsen poses the question: "If a Muslim pope existed, would anyone listen carefully to him?" and I am not honestly sure. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church places the Pope at the top who can delegate responsibility down the ladder and I think a Muslim pope would need the same type of support system. The Catholic Pope has also had years and years to establish the position, while a Muslim pope would most likely struggle at the beginning to obtain the same level of prestige. I think it dialogue between the Muslim world and the Western would improve with the establishment of a Muslim pope who could speak for all Muslims, but I see this as only happening in the very far future.

The Privileged Religious

2006-10-08T10:52:00.000-07:00

Diana Henriques wrote an article that appeared in today's New York Times, “As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation,” that is extremely relevant to what we have been discussing in class. It focuses primarily on breaks for social security and exemptions from zoning rules that religious organizations receive for no other reason than the fact they are “religious.” As the number of religious groups throughout the United States increases, so does the growing political influence these groups wield as well as the number of protections and exemptions they are eligible for. Governmental officials and judges at all levels are well aware of the powerful position the religious community holds and they respond accordingly by exempting religious organizations from laws and regulations to avoid infringing upon the rights of the religious or being blamed for discriminating against them. However, religious organizations rely on public services and by receiving tax exemptions, other citizens are being made to subsidize those benefits while nonreligious organizations that provide the same charitable services as churches do not receive the same breaks. Are the religious exempt from many societal responsibilities that should extend to all? I think so and I don't believe government is protecting all citizens equally. As religious organizations expand to include activities such as fitness clubs, I think it is preposterous that they still receive exemptions and benefits not accessible to other groups that have to meet rigorous licensing requirements and monetary payments. Religious organizations may make the claim that they deserve exemptions for the services they provide in places like orphanages, schools, and hospitals, but secular schools are not granted the same privileged status. To me, government seems to be unfairly favoring the religious over the nonreligious. The reason for the strict licensing requirements in Alabama is to prevent the death of children because before these requirements, an average of 6 children per year died. A day care associated with a religious organization should have to meet the same requirements as any other day care because the issue is safety and any organization should have to meet a standard level of safety, religious or not. Church day cares are exempt from licensing requirements in Alabama because the state views oversight as intrusive, but why is pastor/congregational quality control necessarily better than any nonreligious quality control? My viewpoint is supported by statistics in Texas that claim “the rate of confirmed cases of abuse and neglect at alternatively accredited facilities in Texas is more than 10 times that of state-licensed facilities.” The case Henriques addresses about religious exemptions from zoning laws deals with the Rocky Mountain Christian Church in Boulder, Colorado and how it seeks to expand due to increasing numbers onto land that has been protected by the Boulder County Commission in order to maintain the natural beauty of the land. The Church views the zoning restrictions as “restricting their mission” and in order to keep the church from expanding, Boulder County needs to make a very convincing argument that by restricting “religion” they are serving a compelling public interest in preserving open space. If the Christian Church wins, it sets a precedent that religious institutions can essentially dictate their own land-use regulations and I see that as unfairly and unconstitutionally privileging the religious.

It's in how we interpret it all

2006-10-01T20:20:00.000-07:00

I ran across an article on belief.net that reminded me of what we have been discussing in class recently concerning the differences between a Mainstream Protestant and an Evangelical Protestant and how difficult it can be to distinguish one from the other. This article centers on the challenges one faces when attempting to understand another's religious views while holding similar, yet decidedly different ones. In other words... things are "lost in translation." When Episcopalian, Jon Meacham, interviewed Billy Graham (who is arguably an evangelical), Meacham mistakenly interpreted Billy Graham's words to reflect those of his own. This is a reflection of how people tend to not only hear the things they want to hear, but to interpret things in ways they personally understand and/or agree with. The author argues that people often struggle with correctly commenting on the views of those who hold beliefs that are radically different, and I agree with him. However, I also can see how people can struggle with correctly conveying the beliefs of those that are similar to their own because the differences are harder to distinguish. It would naturally be easier for me as a Catholic to talk with an Episcopalian than a Buddhist, but if I were to write an article it would be difficult to convey the thoughts of an Episcopalian without coloring the article with my own personal views. This article was particularly interesting because it was about Billy Graham and in class we were unsure about in what Protestant religious group he fell. Meacham's interview with Graham is in itself, fairly insignificant, but I was curious if there were more prominent cases in which language is "lost in translation" on the religious front and the kinds of problems this can create. Many mistakes can be made subconsciously and often times the way in which we understand something depends on our personal experiences and beliefs.

Thoughts on "Unending War"

2006-09-24T15:54:00.001-07:00

In America: The National Catholic Weekly, I read an article that discussed weapons of war that have been prohibited, such as antipersonnel land mines. Depleted uranium munitions are also viewed as inhumane and against the "ethics" of war. Recently, in light of the fighting that has been devastating Lebanon, cluster bombs have been discussed as weapons that should be added to the list of those prohibited. Their ability to injure a civilian population and the fact that young children are attracted to them makes returning home a difficult task for families that do now see the bombs scattered throughout the bombing zones. The U.S. Senate did nothing to "prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilians in future conflicts" by controlling the sale of the weapons and it is viewed as being hypocritical because its actions reflects the thought that humanitarian law does not apply to the U.S. or our allies. These cluster bombs were being used by the Israel Defense Force throughout the Lebanon assault. In attempts to control future use of cluster bombs, the Vatican mission at the United Nations in Geneva is calling for "international treaties to restrict their use" and it believes that because a weapon is "legitimate" does not mean it is any less humane. The Vatican has not gone unheard and negotiations and legislation are making their way through congress that will restrict the use of cluster bombs in the future. My question for you: While some weapons may be termed "legitimate," should any weapon ever gain that type of label? I think not. In my eyes, a knife that is used to inflict pain upon another human being is just as much a weapon as a tank that was used to run over the protesting students at Tiananmen Square in China. I am glad that the Vatican has pointed out the hypocrisy of the U.S.'s actions and the strides it has taken as an organization to stop the proliferate use of weapons is commendable. So questions to think about: Is the Catholic Church the only religious establishment with enough clout to challenge military action and ask for changes in legislation? Is it the Church's place to do so? Would the United Nations be as receptive to other religious groups as it is with the Catholic Church? What if a prominent member of the Muslim community made a similar request to the UN - do you believe the UN would respond in a similar fashion? When one thinks about the separation between Church and State, how much influence should any religious group be able to wield in the political sphere?

Got Mormon?

2006-09-15T18:18:00.000-07:00

On belief.net I ran across an article centering on Republican Gov. Mitt Romney who happens to be a Mormon and the problems he is facing as he eyes the White House about his affiliation with the Mormon Sect, or as some like to call it, the Mormon Cult. He finds himself in a very difficult position as he attempts to separate himself from his church to appease those Americans who are against voting a Mormon candidate into office while at the same time, proving to religious conservatives that he will not be the type of person who checks his religious beliefs at the door and is hardly impacted by his faith. In truth, he faces a challenge greater than the one Kennedy faced when running for presidency as the first Catholic because he must take all strides necessary to not alienate those of his own faith, the non-religious, or Christian evangelicals. He is being called be some to separate his "faith" from his denominational beliefs. If you ask me, I am unsure he will be able to find a line between the two because beliefs are rooted in one's faith. In this article I learned a lot about the Mormon faith and that Mormons do not believe in original sin, but they do hold that their church is the one true church. As a Catholic, I found this belief interesting because I was raised to believe that the Catholic Church is the "one true church". Are these differences significant? Not necessarily. The Catholic Church is different from the Protestant church, so naturally I would think the Mormon church would have its own distinguishing features and beliefs. Romney is not favored in the political sphere in any way by the Mormon church and I think it is more important to look at his credentials in the political arena and the work he has accomplished as governor than his religious affiliation. Obviously he is going to have to face questions dealing with the Mormon history of polygamy and racism, but if he broaches the subject first, he can make people look at Mormonism as it exists now and point out that other religions are not without their own faults and failures as religious institutions. Concerning moral issues, Christians and Mormons hold many of the same views and if Romney can emphasize these similarities, he stands a better chance at winning over those voters who hold conservative views on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research - the importance is in finding common ground that he can stand on. As a Mormon Republican, Romney has already proved that he can overcome the Mormon label by winning elections in a heavily Liberal and Catholic state such as Massachusetts. How important is one's "religious label" when running for office and can you see yourself voting for a Mormon president of the United States in the next presidential election?

Religious Pluralism

2006-09-09T18:46:00.000-07:00

This week I read an article that focused on a Hindu festival, Janmashtami, at a temple in Virginia that involved a lot of singing and dancing. The purpose of the festival is to celebrate Krishna's birth and can be viewed as a celebration close to Christmas and the birth of Christ. There are many similarities between the birth of Krishna and the birth of Jesus and for Hindus, Krishna is a central figure in their religion b/c he is the reincarnation of Vishnu, the preserver. Many of the tenents of Hinduism parallel those embraced by Christians and I was able to compare the ritual of ardi and the handing out of prasad to the cleansing associated with baptism and the symbolism surrounding the Eucharist. Is a religious ceremony like this detrimental to a religiously pluralistic society that exists in the United States? I don't think so. The article was written by a member of the Hindu community who describes the festival as cleansing because it reminded her of God's love and walking a path of righteousness. Her experience can be compared to one a Catholic, like myself, seeks by attending a religious retreat or going to mass.
Recently in my developmental biology class I also came across an article in our bioethics textbook that discussed Hinduism and described the religion as one that is founded on nonviolence. In the religious spirit, Hindus believe that abortion is an act of violence that leads to one obtaining bad karma and therefore stuck forever in the cycle of reincarnation, without hope of achieving enlightenment. Abortion is a very sticky subject in politics within the United States because it addresses many conflicting beliefs, such as when human life begins and if a mother has the right to kill her unborn child in order to save her own life. One question I pose is: What are our moral obligations for regulating behavior within a religiously pluralistic society? How are these determined?

Reflection on "Moral Stem Cells" (May 2006)

2006-08-31T12:49:00.000-07:00

Recently I read an article by E. Christian Brugger on firstthings.com that focused on David Schindler, dean of the John Paul II Inst. in D.C., and his response to the scientific world's desire to appease those who are against research involving embryonic stem cells by improving what is known as the "Altered Nuclear Transfer - Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming" (ANT-OAR) procedure. What about this procedure will calm down those members of the religious community who believe that using totipotent cells and human embryos for research is essentially the same thing as killing potential human life? Well... it involves taking somatic cells from an adult, transferring them into ooplasts (and in doing so, altering their epigenetic state), and therefore giving them the ability to be pluripotent, but unable to become totipotent (which would have the potential to form human zygotes). ANT-OAR has gained the support of many eminent scientists as well as members of the religious community and many are still developing research techniques with nonhuman cells to further the possibility of ANT-OAR and perfect the actual process. While this research step that has the potential to cure thousands of diseases and the ability to rebuild organs and tissues is viewed as a way to bring the religious and the scientific spheres to a consensus, some still find fault with altered nuclear transfer and are morally adamant against the use of embryonic cells if ANT-OAR proves unsuccessful. Stem cell research has been a subject of heated debate because of its controversial nature. The main arguments to ANT-OAR center on the process, not the end product. Pluripotent cells are clearly different from totipotent cells, but Schindler makes the argument that before a cell undergoes somatic nuclear transfer it is still an embryo at its initial existence and any manipulation of the cell is preventing possible totipotency. Scientists rebuke his claim from a biological standpoint by stating ANT-OAR "aims to create a cell that, from its first moment, exhibits organic properties biologically incompatible with totipotency" and the author of this article strongly agrees with them.

If legislation is to be passed concerning whether or not ANT-OAR should be a legal process, will my moral obligations as a Catholic keep me from supporting the legislation?

I agree with the author of this article and do not believe that a "single-celled entity can at once be a human embryo and yet manifestly not be characterized by an epigenetic state of totipotency." In my opinion, ANT-OAR resolves the issue of "killing human embryos" by ensuring the cells that are being used are truly pluripotent and possess no ability to ever sustain human life. In addition, biological advancements in the medical field that can be achieved through the use of pluripotent cell research is outstanding and could save the lives of an innumerable amount of people. Religion aside... I think religion has been effectively removed and moral obligations toward the sanctity of life that doesn't truly exist is hindering scientist's ability to cure those with life-threatening diseases. It is not an issue of checking my religious beliefs at the door because those cells that become pluripotent as opposed to totipotent have no characteristics of human life. Any policy that addresses further research on stem cell development is sufficiently motivated by adequate secular reasons that compel me to serve as an advocate for such a law.