Category: Opinions

Categories
Opinions

Future of Catholicism After Benedict XVI and John Paul II

Courtesy of npr.org
Courtesy of npr.org

In a country where Protestant Christianity stands as the dominant religion and Roman Catholicism often seems to be at a disjoint with the operations of Rome, it can be easy to underestimate the significance of this past week’s events. On Ash Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI said his last mass as the Church’s leader, and became the first Pope to resign in nearly 600 years, the last being Pope Gregory the XII in 1415. I admit that I myself (even as a Roman Catholic) didn’t fully realize the importance of this event until after thinking about it more closely. However, I believe that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI creates an interesting situation for the future of the Catholic Church, in which the Church will either continue on its liberalizing path, or attempt to recover some of its lost traditionalism.

This is an interesting time in Catholic history. It is not hard to forget that just over 50 years ago the Catholic Church went through radical liturgical and theological changes that defined Roman Catholicism as we so know it today. These changes took place at the Second Vatican Council, the Church’s 21st ecumenical council. Among the most visible changes that the council made was a shift from a universal Latin liturgy to a liturgy that may be spoken in the vernacular of the particular congregation.

The change from a universal Latin Mass seems like a commonsensical move, I mean, doesn’t it make sense to hear a church service in your own language? But to Roman Catholics, this was a huge change, and it is difficult from our present-day perspective to appreciate just how radical it was. The Latin Mass has traditional roots that stretch back as early as the year 250 A.D and since the 16th Century it had been the official language of Catholic services worldwide. For Catholic theologians this was an important aspect of the Church’s practice, as it fostered unity not only with congregations worldwide, but also with the congregations across the historical spectrum. Unity of the believing body of Christ is among the irreducible goods for the Catholic, and the Latin Mass was among the most important tools for transcending cultural boundaries that may inhibit such unity.

However, Vatican II changed the liturgical framework, along with other things, in order to

Courtesy of images.huffingtonpost.com
Courtesy of images.huffingtonpost.com

better accommodate the Catholic Church to the modern world. But many believed that these decisions were compromising the Church’s distinctiveness and encouraging a liberally minded acceptance of wavering ideologies. At what point ought the Church attempt to accommodate for the increasingly pluralistic and scientific age, and when should the Church make the world accommodate to itself? This is a theologically difficult question, and to some, the Second Vatican Council made it loud and clear that the Catholic Church was ready to transgress its traditionally substantiated practices in order to meet the needs of the modern worldview.

But what does any of this have to do with the recent Pope’s resignation? Well, though Pope Benedict XVI has been labeled as a conservative, many forget that he, then known as Joseph Ratzinger, was one of the young theologians pushing for the Vatican II changes. Appearing at each of the Vatican II meetings in a business suit, young Ratzinger, along with Karol Wojtyla, (who would become Pope John Paul II) defended the belief that the Church needed serious changes if it were to remain effective in the changing world. Thus, Benedict XVI stands as one of the last active original members of the Second Vatican Council, and among the last of the original advocates of its general trajectory.

Therefore, the last two popes each had a personal investment in the post-Vatican II Catholic mission: which, generally put, is to seek ways in which the Church can change in order to improve its influence upon the world. Many traditionalists believe that this is almost entirely opposite to the Catholic Church’s mission, which they deem to be maintaining a historical and theological bridge between believers today and the apostle Peter, claimed to be the first pope of the Catholic Church. So, with Benedict XVI leaving his position as the leader of 1.2 billion believers, in what direction will the next pope lead the Church? Traditionalists may claim that now that a main advocate of Vatican II has exited the papacy, it is now time for a pope to attempt to re-emphaisize the Church’s traditional distinctiveness, as opposed to liberalism. Yet, others believe that the next pope may continue Vatican II’s liberalizing trajectory, perhaps enacting changes such as the ordination of women to the priesthood and a progression of LGBT rights. The papacy, leaving behind one of the original advocates of Vatican II, is at a crossroads. The cardinals hope to have elected a pope by Easter, which puts a deadline on the Catholic Church’s decision-making. Regardless of the direction in which this largest body of Christian believers goes, the Catholic Church’s next steps will have immense ramifications for the ongoing dialogue between the secular world and the Christian tradition.

 

Categories
Opinions

What Malcom X Taught a Black Christian

Courtesy of http://lifeofablackgirl.wordpress.com/
Courtesy of http://lifeofablackgirl.wordpress.com/

I believed the lie.  For most of my life I, like many of you, saw Malcolm X as the violent and less-successful opponent of the docile MLK.  There he stood, angrily signifying, indicting white America for the ill-treatment of its darker brothers and sisters.  Malcolm said that black was beautiful and that white society possessed no divine standard by which the black community needed to measure itself.  Malcolm’s analysis troubled me.  His palpable anger made me uncomfortable.  The white society that he described, infused through and through with the philosophy of white superiority, sounded nothing like my bevy of white friends at my college preparatory high school in downtown Chicago.  He was divisive.  He was arrogant.  He was nothing like our good Baptist saint MLK.  And most importantly, he wasn’t a Christian – he was a Muslim.  Appraising his ideology and religious affiliation as less than stellar, I had respect for Malcolm but no need for him.  Or so I thought.

In October of my junior year at Houghton, I obtained a copy of the best-selling Autobiography of Malcolm X in the college library and committed myself to reading the entire memoir.  Commitment gave way to utter captivation as I consumed the entire book with an almost sacred delight.  Upon finishing the book, I read and watched everything that I could find about Malcolm.  Consequently, I came to see that I had been mistaken – flat-out wrong – in my premature interpretation of Malcolm X.  Malcolm was no violent, victim-playing vigilante.  He was courageous enough to speak the unmitigated truth to American society about the horrors of the black American experience.  He hated no one, but he loved black people too much to dilute the reality of their condition.  Getting to know the real Malcolm X changed my life, sparking within me an interfaith dialogue that left me more Christian than ever.

Malcolm taught me that I must have a Christianity that addressed me totally – including my blackness.  It is not secret that Evangelical Christianity has largely been interpreted in Euro-centric perspective, often devaluing, intentionally and unintentionally, Afro-centric religious presentations.  Seeing a theology that justified white superiority, Malcolm saw American Christianity as an aid in enslaving the black conscience.  As a devout Christian and lover of history, I take issue with Malcolm.  It was also the black church that had the greatest purveyor of black dignity.  Black Christianity was in and of itself liberating.

However, I could not dismiss Malcolm’s contention.  Too often black Christians have espoused a Christianity that ignores their blackness instead of appreciating and speaking to it.  Even I had been guilty of this, tricked by the illusion.  Malcolm reminded me that though I am at Houghton – a predominantly white institution – that I am black, and that my faith would have to be able to work outside of the safe confines of this community and speak to the violence and poverty of the largely black and brown Chicago community from which I come.  My faith would have to speak to me wholly.

Malcolm was loud and honest about black injustice.  Possessing a swift silver-tongue and a keen intellect, he was able to communicate what Dr. Cornel West terms, “black rage” like no other.  Even MLK, who purposely avoided such rhetoric in an attempt to avert inciting violent reaction, comes second to Malcolm in this respect.  Malcolm was upfront about black frustration with American racism, and as a result he is scary.  He was a prophetic voice, issuing the clarion call in a strange and desolate land.  Malcolm proved to me that empowerment and reconciliation sometimes means being honest about the horrors of oppression.

Too often, in the interest of cheap, rapid reconciliation, we are encouraged to forgive and forget; to be silent about the atrocities of abuse.  Malcolm said that it was OK, in fact, morally obligatory, to be angered by injustice.  True reconciliation is impossible without an acknowledgement of and repentance from the wrongs committed.  Some dismiss Malcolm as divisive and unhelpful for his honesty.  He showed me that “crying aloud” means “sparing not”, even when the truth is hard and painful to hear.

Perhaps one of the greatest lessons I learned from Malcolm X was taught to me not by his strengths, but by a weakness of his.  While Malcolm’s ability to communicate black beauty, self-reliance, and rage is unparalleled, his early methodology for handling the issues of the black experience was limited, even tenuous.  Thus, he is a compelling reminder that communicating the plight of the oppressed is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

This is where Malcolm is most weak in the first years of his career (1959-1962), and I believe that he knew this.  It is clear following his departure from the Nation of Islam (NOI) in 1964 that he, no longer bound by the exclusionary policies of the NOI, sought to implement a program of political liberation for black people – Black Nationalism.  Meaning, as he said, that black people “should control the politics of [their] own community.”  Malcolm came to see that talking about black dissatisfaction with the system was only effective when coupled with activism to bring about sustainable change.  He “gets” this by 1964, but is unfortunately killed before his maturing revelation can come to fruition.  Malcolm reminds us all that powerful prophetic voices also seek to be solution-finding voices.

Malcolm X wasn’t supposed to teach me anything.  My education and earliest exposure to him sought to assure this.  Malcolm is dangerous.  His dedication to communicating the woes of the marginalized and his appeals to self-reliance pose a threat to the maintenance of the status quo.  I found in Malcolm a challenge to be realistic and intentional about dealing with justice and a renewed dedication to Christian methodology in the fight for human dignity.  My hope is that the entire community will seek to learn more about him.  Allowing his prophetic voice and spirit to motivates us to speak-up and act out.  Let us not believe the lie – Malcolm has something to say and it is worth hearing “by any means necessary.”

Categories
Opinions

South Park and Sex: Censorship at Houghton

Courtesy of http://theplanetd.com/
Courtesy of http://theplanetd.com/

Censorship is one of those ever-present issues on campus that seem to only accentuate the disparity between the student body and the administration. Let’s be honest: who here has not received one of those obnoxious “web filter violation” notifications? The worst part is reading the category in which it throws those websites you always thought were innocent before coming to Houghton. The bright side is that we all get a kick out of it when a professor tries to pull up an educational site that is classified under pornographic material. The question, however, that we need to grapple with is not simply whether or not fart-sounds.net should be blocked, but should anything be censored?

Censorship is a tricky issue due to the fact that most items fall into a fairly large grey area. With drugs and alcohol it is fairly easy to regulate. Don’t drink. Don’t use illegal substances. But how do you legitimize not watching South Park? Is its content more objectionable than that of some of the DVDs in the library’s collection?

The issue of censorship inevitably comes down to how much is too much. We ban pornography, but what about movies and shows whose entire premise revolves around sex? And honestly, what show on American prime-time TV does not revolve around casual sex? Friends? How I Met Your Mother? New Girl? The Mindy Project?  The innocence of Leave it to Beaver is long gone. Yet I can guarantee that most of the student body and a significant chunk of the faculty watch these very shows, if not similar ones.

As far as the usage of language is concerned, Houghton College attempts to maintain appropriate standards. In the student guide for the 2012-2013 year it is written, “Houghton College students are expected to honor God in both speech and lifestyle. The taking of God’s name in vain or the use of offensive, abusive, profane, crude, racist, sexist, or obscene language is prohibited and may result in disciplinary action.”

We, the editorial staff, are disturbed by the threat of disciplinary action for an area of life with such ambiguous standards. Define any one of their descriptors for inappropriate language. For some there are few words in the English language that they would deem inappropriate. For others, however, that list may span quite a significant chunk of Webster’s dictionary.

The fact is that it varies from person to person. The issue with censorship is that it inevitably limits a large group for the sake of the comfort of a few.

2011-2012 Star Opinions Editor Elisa Shearer wrote an editorial a year ago in which she was grappling with the issue of sexuality. The reason we think it is so important and relates to censorship is that it isn’t clear cut. Yes, sex can be scientifically explained; but what about all the other ways in which our bodies and minds are stimulated? As a Christian should we feel guilty for hugging someone of the opposite sex? How about kissing them? Or making out? Now cuddling? Even without going into more detail, it is clear that the line, for some, dividing sin and not-sin does not reside in intercourse alone. Where does the loss of virginity then occur, from a moralistic point of view? It is decided by the conscience of the individuals involved.

This same reasoning can be applied to almost anything (besides maybe murder). What constitutes offensive language varies greatly. What constitutes adult material varies significantly. What defines appropriate dress attire? if you’re an international student from Asia Minor or North Africa you might see a bunch of loose promiscuous women walking around campus; on the flip side, if you’re from southern California you may see a bunch of conservative odd balls. The fact is that some things cannot be defined by a general overarching statement; and this is exactly what censorship does.

There are too many grey areas in life to be able to regulate in such seemingly clear cut ways. Ban sex, alcohol and drugs, but once you begin disciplining adults for what they wear, say and look at, it becomes much too difficult to maintain appropriate standards.

Categories
Opinions

Rap: A Reflection of Culture; Not an Instigator

Courtesy of http://www.glogster.com/
Courtesy of http://www.glogster.com/

I’ll confess, I love rap. And not the clean Christian substitute that started making an appearance with groups such as The Cross Movement and Reach Records. I’m not even a fan of clean secular artists; Will Smith may very well have been the worst thing that ever happened to the rap industry. No, I like the raw, uncut, uncensored rap in all its vulgarity, and, in no way does that mean that I am misogynistic or racist. Rather, I think it is important for us to hear these words for the harsh critique of what our society is. The Marilyn Mansons and Eminems in this world are not responsible for shootings and rapes; rather, they expose serious problems that society struggles with.

Eminem writes, “That’s why we sing for these kids who don’t have a thing… or for anyone who’s ever been through [hard times] in their lives.” This is the reason that rap is one of the fastest-growing and furthest-reaching musical genres in history and why everyone seems so intrigued by it.

Lowkey was right when he sang, “You can never avoid the voices of the voiceless,” and rap gives the voiceless a voice. We can’t ignore the helpless. We must face it, but in facing it we run into layers upon layers of misconceptions, one of which is the notion that rap is evil. After all, any industry that glorifies murder, violence, drugs, rape and general hedonism must be evil, right? But this is the biggest misconception. Rap tells the story of broken people, not a tale of evil’s glorification.

Another misconception is that rap has strayed away from its glory days, that it has somehow lost its way and left its roots. The truth is that there never were any “glory days” that were somehow lost and forgotten; what has happened is simply a cultural paradigm shift. We are faced with different problems and the music industry has shifted its focus to reflect these problems. The poetry of these artists has changed from the socio-political platform it once held in the 70’s, 80’s and even early 90’s to the position it now holds: talking about the accumulation of wealth, drug use, and promiscuity.

During the days of Afrika Mambaataa and the Zulu Nation and the early days of Ice Cube, Eazy-E and Dr. Dre, the issues that needed addressing were those of the outstanding racism in our nation, the economic and social repression of minority groups, and the violence in underprivileged neighborhoods. Obviously these issues have not disappeared, and many are the rappers who still sing about them. But what we are currently experiencing is something different: the Great Recession and a world dominated by a small percentage of elite. And this has changed the focus of the songs being produced.

If you think that the “hood” is a worse place because of rap, you are mistaken. The violence that plagues the hood has yet to hit the suburbs with the influx of mainstream “gangsta rap,” you just need to look at the decrease in crime rates over the last 20 years to see that. What has happened though is that the negative aspects of our culture, the homophobia, misogyny, racism, violence, promiscuity, and substance abuse are being exposed for what they are. Rappers are reflecting a developing trend; not setting examples for youths.

Rather than attacking the rap industry, our time would be better spent addressing the social issues within our culture. Rap is not the cause of the issues. Ice Cube performs a satirical song titled “Gangsta Rap Made Me Do It”—a witty twist on the famous “The Devil Made Me Do It”—in which a professor condemns gangster rap for the ills of society during a classroom lecture. The teacher says, “Prior to gangster rap music the world was a peaceful place. And then all of that changed, violence, rape, murder, arson, theft, war, they are all things that came about as a result of gangster rap.” Ice Cube goes on to list horrific things such as “if I shot up your college, ain’t nothin’ to it, gangsta rap made me do it.” The purpose of this line is not to blame the musical genre for society’s ills, but to recognize the problems’ origination and the need to fix them.

The issue with trying produce “clean” rap is that it too often leaves out the sting that this genre carries with it. It detracts from the message that is trying to be conveyed; the cries of a hurting society. In all this, I am not trying to say that there is no place for Christian rap. By all means, keep “ridin’ with your top down listening to that “Jesus Muzik,’” but do not be so hasty to throw away the rest of rap.

Categories
Opinions

People Kill People — With Guns

Fear mongering is definitely what is happening in this country when it comes to gun control, but I will lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of gun rights activists. Some groups do seem to want to want us to live in fear of attack at any moment, but those groups are the firearms corporations and the NRA.

Guns are being advertised as self-defense weapons for people to protect themselves against home invaders and attackers. The NRA has suggested that school guards be armed in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Proposals for gun control regulations are treated as propositions to remove the second amendment from the Constitution.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/
Courtesy of http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/

Conservative pundits blame violent movies and video games as well as poor mental health services for mass shootings, ignoring guns as a relevant factor. The phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is tossed around on a daily basis.

Evan Selinger, associate professor of philosophy at RIT, wrote on “The Philosophy of the Technology of the Gun” for the Atlantic. He explains that many people have an instrumentalist conception of technology, believing that it is value-neutral. According to this view, Selinger writes that technology “is subservient to our beliefs and desires; it does not significantly constrain much less determine them.”

In a contrasting argument, Selinger quotes Don Ihde, a leading philosopher of technology, as saying that “the human-gun relation transforms the situation from any similar situation of a human without a gun.”
Selinger points out that, though guns could have many different possible uses, “such options are not practically viable because gun design itself embodies behavior-shaping values; its material composition indicates the preferred ends to which it ‘should’ be used.”

Guns lead to a “reduction in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as dangerous, and a concomitant amplification in the amount and intensity of environmental features that are perceived as calling for the subject to respond with violence,” Selinger wrote.
To carry this argument further, it seems to me that the preferred end to which assault weapons and large ammunition magazines are to be used is assaulting people.

Why then, I ask, is it so controversial that President Obama has proposed a renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban? Why then, is it so controversial that he has proposed limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds?

The President is not trying to take away Americans’ right to bear arms. Instead, he is pushing for universal background checks and research on gun violence. He is trying to make the country a safer place, and he is not stepping on the rights of hunters or pistol owners by doing so.

I recently read an interesting opinions editorial in the New York Times written by self-professed liberal gun owner Justin Cronin. To give you an idea of where he is coming from, Cronin wrote, “I have half a dozen pistols in my safe, all semiautomatics, the largest capable of holding 20 rounds. I go to the range at least once a week, have applied for a concealed carry license and am planning to take a tactical training course in the spring.”

Although Cronin admitted to being aware that, “statistically speaking, a gun in the home represents a far greater danger to its inhabitants than to an intruder,” he, like many people, owns guns in part to protect his family.

However, Cronin went on to write that, “the White House’s recommendations seem like a good starting point and nothing that would prevent me from protecting my family in a crisis. The AR-15 is a fascinating weapon, and, frankly, a gas to shoot. So is a tank, and I don’t need to own a tank.”

My question to you is whether you think it is right that a renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban may be blocked due to pressure from the NRA. Is an assault weapon really just a meaningless piece of technology that has no effect on its owner’s beliefs and desires whatsoever?

Or does an assault weapon have the power to transform situations, indicating to the owner its inherent purpose as a violent killing machine?

Categories
Opinions

Victim Blaming: A Cultural Dismissal of Rape

On Saturday I posted a Facebook status containing a mini-essay I’d found online comparing the victim-blaming attitude toward rape with getting your Rolex stolen and having the police ask, “Is it possible you wanted to be mugged?”  Moments after, a friend of mine shared the status.  A friend of hers posted a comment.  His first line? “I get tired of women and this rape issue.”

To the gentleman who posted that comment, I will make a valiant effort to ignore the inappropriate and offensive nature of your statement, and operate under the assumption that you are simply confused and ignorant.  I address the following to you, in an effort to help you and others like you understand the injustices that fuel those women who make you “tired.”

In Canada in 2011, a policeman suggested that to prevent rape, women should “avoid dressing like sluts.”  What resulted was the first ever SlutWalk.  Women (and men) congregated in the streets of Toronto in various states of undress to protest rape and victim-blaming.

In the Christian community, modesty is an issue of respect and accountability.  Purity is an important aspect of our faith.  We don’t want to make it difficult for one another.  However, if a man or woman is not dressing modestly, must they then expect to be raped?  Personal preference should not dictate how one human being treats another, and, in fact, it doesn’t.  Rape is more often a crime inspired by power than lust.  Any kind of person can be and has been raped: senior citizens, prostitutes, handicapped, men, children, women wearing old, baggy sweaters.  There are no exceptions and therefore no excuses for committing the act.  Blaming a woman for her choice of wardrobe is both discriminatory and irrelevant.

This attitude of blaming the victim is present in more ways than one when it comes to rape.  A few weeks ago, two high school footballers in Ohio were charged with the rape of a 16 year old girl.  The evidence included a full video of the event that had been posted to YouTube, and photographs circulated on Instagram of the two boys carrying the nude and unconscious girl.  Despite this, the defense lawyer insisted that the girl be referred to as the “accuser” rather than the victim.  This label calls to attention issues of communication, and in this area as well, victims of rape are often discredited.

My step-mother was asleep in her own home when she was attacked.  A knife was held to her neck and she was told that if she woke her children, they would be harmed.  And yet these were the questions she dealt with from the police: Why did you leave the door unlocked? Did you tell him you didn’t want him?  To me, these questions reveal a dangerous attitude toward the concepts of resistance and consent.  This man broke into her home and threatened the lives of her children.  How necessary was it, really, for her to inform him that, no, she would not like to have sex with him?

Rape outdoors is extremely rare; in fact, most rapes take place in the home of the victim or perpetrator.  In 75% of all rapes, the perpetrator is known to the victim.  So in almost every rape, the victim is in a safe place, with a person they feel comfortable around, or both.  They are not expecting an assault, and when it happens they are shocked, confused, and scared.  Admittedly it is important for the perpetrator to know whether his or her advances are welcome, but in extreme cases, the emphasis placed on resistance in order to obtain a conviction is unacceptable.

Courtesy of http://www.globalpost.com/
Courtesy of http://www.globalpost.com/

On top of these injustices, there is a general cultural dismissiveness toward rape.  Prevention responsibility is put entirely on potential victims.  Don’t wear this, don’t do that.  Where is the advice, Do not rape?  How is any victim supposed to muster the courage to report rape if they feel responsible?  Three of my close friends have been raped, and not one of them has reported it.  Two of them were under similar circumstances; they were unconscious, in their own rooms and of their own accord from either medicine or alcohol.  They woke after the act had been completed by an acquaintance that had snuck in.  United States Federal law defines rape as engaging in a sexual act by using force, causing harm, threatening, rendering unconscious or drugging.  Which of these categories do these girls fit into?  What skepticism would they encounter if they dared bring their stories to the police?

The gentleman on Facebook also expressed frustration with female-centered rape protest, pointing out that men also experience rape, and complaining that women seem to view all men as potential rapists.  On the first count he is entirely right.  According to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), 2.78 million American men have experienced rape, and their situations are also an example of the need for improvement in the way we handle rape.  Rape of men is classified as “sexual assault” rather than rape.  This, perhaps even more than discriminating legislation against women, reveals the chauvinistic nature of the judicial system.  Men are told, “You’re a man. You weren’t raped, you were assaulted.” This refusal to acknowledge what happened belittles the event and stunts healing.  Men should not feel marginalized or frustrated by the female campaign against rape.  They should join in wholeheartedly.

About 207,754 rapes occur annually.  RAINN states that 59% of rapes are never reported.  This means that the men and women in SlutWalk and in courtrooms are but a tiny percentage of those affected by rape.  It means that whether or not you have experienced rape, one or more people you know likely have.  Victims live their lives 6 times more prone to PTSD and 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.  And out of every 100 rapes that occur, only 3 perpetrators will spend even a day in prison.

This is not an issue to grow tired of.  This is an ongoing abomination, a disgrace, and a call to arms.

Categories
Opinions

Women in Combat, A Next Step Toward Equality

Women in Combat
Women in Combat

In case you have missed the recent headlines, one of Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s final significant policy decisions, the military’s ban on women in direct combat situations has been lifted.
We as an editorial staff collectively say, “Finally.” We find compelling the case presented by the four servicewomen who sued the Pentagon and Panetta over the ban, pointing out that women have already in essence been serving in combat situations, and yet have not received formal recognition for their work and their sacrifices.

In an interview with Eyder Peralta for NPR, former Navy Lieutenant Carey Lohrenz said, “We have women in combat roles right now. We are just not able to promote them.” This denial of formal recognition and promotions has gone on too long, and Panetta’s lift of the ban is, in the words of Democratic Senator Mazie K. Hirono, a “great step toward equality.”

Others who read and commented on Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker’s New York Times coverage of the story don’t see it as such. A New York Times pick comment on their website by the username Harry from Michigan reads, “Next feminists will tell me that women can handle a man in hand to hand combat. How about we have women play in the NFL or any other pro sports…”
First, this comment villainizes feminism, a movement that has made and continues to make great strides in human rights issues for years. Next, to the dismay of Harry, we would point out that some women actually can handle men in hand to hand combat. There are many women who are more athletic than men, just as there are many women who are less athletic than men.

Veteran and Republican Senator John McCain has issued a statement supporting Panetta’s decision, and he added that, “As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units.”
Women will now have an equal opportunity to enter direct combat positions, but they do not expect any special allowances. In fact, the key is that servicewomen do not want to be treated any differently from servicemen.

Another online commenter on the New York Times article going by the username Keeping It Real wrote, “Why do American women want to be men? (Or is the real question, “Why are American women not allowed to be women?”)” New York Times pick commenter Academia Nut from Canada retorted, “Why would you limit a woman’s choice to be whatever she wants to be and is capable of being?”

Women have been moving into spheres traditionally occupied by men for years, and as Lohrenz said to Peralta, “We have women in combat roles right now… They’re on the ground in Iraq; they’re on the ground in Afghanistan. This is strictly formalizing and recognizing what their contributions currently are.”

The backlash from commenters such as Harry and Keeping It Real seem to be knee-jerk reactions to the blurring of lines between what is masculine and what is feminine that in the past have been more clear. They are focusing on the differences between men and women when the differences among men and women are much more significant.

This change in policy is not the first of its kind; New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland all already permit women to serve in direct combat. There is no word as to whether women have ruined professional sports in these countries yet.

Categories
Opinions

Is Christianity Intolerant? Defining Tolerance and Intolerance in Response to Accusation

Is Christianity Tolerant?
Is Christianity Tolerant?

In an increasingly secular western world, there are growing numbers of non-religious and even anti-religious young people in our country.   I enjoy dialoguing with these people, because they offer a perspective that is rarely encountered here at Houghton: a perspective without God in the picture.  Oftentimes the conversation drifts towards the criticisms of Christianity in particular, since it is the largest and most influential faith in our society and since Christians tend to make themselves easy targets.  While there are plenty of valid arguments that arise from the critic’s corner in these talks, one criticism that I hear over and over again bothers me because is often spewed without much thought.  That would be the sentiment that “I dislike Christians because they are intolerant”.
Intolerance.  What does that word mean?  I think before answering this question, I should explain what it doesn’t mean.  That’s because it is a word thrown around so casually and frequently in religious conversation that it can easily overstep its boundaries.  Some people that I’ve talked to seem to think that Christians are intolerant just because they have exclusive beliefs that don’t fit into a relativistic culture.  This just isn’t the case.  Yes, Christianity could be classified (in most of its orthodox strains) as an exclusive religion.  It affirms that Jesus Christ is the only way to most fully experience God in this life, and that Jesus is also the only way to gain access to God in the next life.  By default, Christians must admit that other faiths are incomplete, misinformed, or at least lacking in some key way.  Unfortunately for modern western Christians, this doctrine of exclusivity doesn’t bode well in a society that increasingly seeks to minimize religious differences, stress similarities, and ultimately claim that all faiths lead to the same place.  Society basically puts all faiths “on the same team” in hopes that in this way religious tensions and sensitivities can be put to rest; so that instead the moral cores that religions tend to bring out in people could thus shine through.  When a stubborn adherence to a non-relativistic belief system, such as that of Christianity, threatens the secular agenda, it is labeled as “intolerant” in order to scare or shame people away from the church.  But this is an inaccurate label.

Believe it or not, a person who subscribes to an exclusive faith can indeed be as tolerant of other faiths as someone who doesn’t believe in any God at all.  In fact, overzealous atheists and secularists, usually those who most often throw around the term “intolerant”, are actually a pot calling the kettle black.  What most people don’t seem to recognize about the word “tolerance” is that it requires or assumes a degree of disagreement to be relevant.  After all, what need is there for “tolerating” of a belief, lifestyle, ideology, or stance if you have no difference of opinion with that position?  Then you would not be tolerating that position at all, but simply agreeing with it.  Tolerance is the trait of having something you don’t fully agree with, and yet being okay with that.  In a sense, tolerance is an “agreeing to disagree” with someone and respecting their right to hold that opinion with peace and dignity.  For example, a Christian will not share the beliefs that a  Hindu holds, but both men can still be friends and not let the differences in beliefs become a barrier to their relationship.  The Christian can believe that the Hindu is mistaken in certain regards, but at the end of the day, the Hindu has reasons for believing what he does just as the Christian does, and has the right to retain those beliefs without feeling shamed or attacked.

What is intolerance then, and where does religious adamancy cross the line?  Intolerance is where one not only disagrees with something, but fails to respect someone else’s rights to hold that belief.  Intolerance can also cross the threshold of actually performing slander or violence against an opposing belief.  This threshold has been crossed many times by both religious parties and secular groups, but is not necessitated by either.  As I briefly alluded to earlier, many atheists or secularists who accuse Christians of intolerance are sometimes guilty of that very same thing.  A main characteristic of the latest surge of “new atheism”, for example, has not only been the disagreement and argument against religion, but an aggressive and brutal slander of religion and religious followers.  Certain prominent atheist speakers, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, have made out religious people to be necessarily deluded, uneducated, fanatical, or a detrimental threat to society.  Taking away the dignity and respect from millions of people who have done nothing to deserve such a reputation is what makes the new atheist movement intolerant.  

Christians can certainly fall guilty of the same sin, when evangelism or dogma turns into a weapon aimed against the intelligence, autonomy, morality, or dignity of an opponent.

There is also a time where it is a good thing to be intolerant.  None of us would tolerate the murder of the children at Sandy Hook last month, for example.  It is a moral imperative for people of all faiths to take active stands against the types of immorality or sentiment that cause harm to others.  The difficulty comes in identifying what battles are those against threats to society and moral atrocities, and which ones are battles against a mere difference in belief.  The responses to these different types of disagreement must be handled in different ways.  Being a Christian does not require compromising one’s faith in order to be liked by other groups, nor does it require taking a sword to those who don’t share our beliefs.  What Christians are commanded to do, among other things, is to love one another and to fight injustice. Against such things there is no law, and against such things there is no valid label of intolerance.

 

Categories
Opinions

Fear Mongering and Media Bias

www.salon.com
Fear Mongering

Over the course of the last couple years the discussion over gun control has been gaining momentum. Unless you lead a secluded life, you have at least heard the incessant hubbub surrounding the debate, if not outright participated.

When the Aurora and Sikh shootings happened over this past summer I followed the ensuing debate very closely. I gained a strong stance against guns. For the most part, the arguments of the predominantly liberal pro-gun control crowd resonated well with me. Guns are designed to kill, and though they are not responsible for high crime rates, easier access provides the opportunity to do more harm, and after all, who needs a 30 round magazines?

Then I heard some interesting statistics revealing that over the course of the last 20 years, crime rates have been dramatically decreasing in the United States.  According to crime stats provided by the FBI, America had a violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992. Fast forward to 2012, and America’s violent crime rate dropped to 386.3 per 100,000. That is an almost 50 percent decrease. If this is true, why isn’t it better publicized? The media seems to want us to think that we will get shot every time we walk out our front door.

What’s even more surprising is that the United Kingdom—idolized by every good progressive liberal for their strict gun legislation—is, according to the European Commission, the most violent country in Europe. The rate of violent crimes with firearms has in fact doubled since the ban on guns was implemented after the Dublin shootings 20 years ago. According to the Home Office, England and Wales had over 762,515 violent crimes in 2011 alone. For a population of only 56 million, that comes out to a ratio of roughly 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000. That is 3.5 times higher than in the U.S.

Looking closely at the facts, it is evident not only that violence does not decrease with increased legislation, but that the opposite is true: the decrease of legally obtainable weapons leads to an increase in violence. The obvious conclusion is that in either case, people who use firearms for harm do not obtain them legally.

It is true that the U.K. has a slightly lower murder rate—only 1.3 compared to the U.S.’s 4.7— however, there are other factors to consider. The bulk of murders take place in small pockets in metropolitan areas of over 250,000 people. The U.S. has 186 of these metropolitan areas whereas the U.K. only has 32. Needless to say we are just scratching the surface when considering the complexities behind these tragedies.

It is clear that the solution does not lie within stricter gun laws. To suggest such a thing would be to ignore the facts. For example, both Chicago and NYC have a total ban on firearms, yet both cities are at the top of the charts for murder rates. So why would creating more gun restrictions better anything?

The statistics make the suggestions of gun-control seem even more ludicrous. According to the EU Commission the U.S. is not even in the top 25 most violent modern nations. The U.K., Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, and even Canada are ahead in violent crime rates. Based on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission data, guns aren’t even in the top 10 most common reasons for emergency room visits. Yet the media has a heyday every time there is a violent crime in America. It makes a better story to talk about one crazy man on psychotropic drugs shooting up a school in a state possessing some of the strictest gun laws in place, than to mention the mother in Colorado protecting her twin infants by taking down a home-invader with her .38 special, or the 15 year old boy in Houston who defended his sister against 4 armed home-invaders with his father’s legally obtained AR-15, or, most notably, the woman carrying a concealed weapon at the Hobbit premiere in San Antonio who took down Jesus Garcia, preventing what would have surely resulted in another Aurora-style slaughter. There are countless stories of law abiding citizens defending themselves with legally-obtained weapons.

This is a sensitive issue to be sure. But realize that where the insensitivity lies is in those who manipulate facts surrounding tragic events in order to push their agenda and increase government control.

Our time and energy would be better spent in figuring out how to decrease unemployment and poverty and fix the education systems within the areas with high crime rates, rather than attempting to deprive law abiding citizens of a chance to defend themselves against rapists, home-invaders, and criminals who gain access to illegal weapons.