A few weeks ago, when we were reading Miguel A. De La Torre’s Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins, I audibly gasped when I read the following:
“In the name of Jesus Christ crusades have been launched to exterminate the Muslim ‘infidels’; women seeking autonomy have been burned as witches; indigenous people who refused to bow their knees to God and king were decimated; the kidnapping, rape, and enslavement of Africans were justified; and today, the pauperization of two-thirds of the world’s population is legitimized so that a small minority of the planet can consider itself blessed by God” (De La Torre, p. 24).
It wasn’t the category of events De La Torre listed that made me pause. Of course I knew of these things. What college-educated person could not have? What hit me hard about this quote was the very clear and direct comparison De La Torre made between those horrendous acts of our past and our own current convenient, or “inadvertent,” participation in events that may now, or could very well in the future, cause just as much human suffering as the crusades, the Salem which trials, genocide of Native Americans, or the African slave trade; that is, namely, global warming, third world sweat-shops, oil spills, deforestation, and the like.
Clearly, the crux of De La Torre’s quote is not to reference general atrocities committed by humans against humans; it is to examine the atrocities committed by Christians against humans in the name of Christianity. Further, while we may think that in the 21st Century such large-scale atrocities in the name of Christ have ended, De La Torre wants to remind us that they haven’t.
Many Christians, especially those enrolled at Claremont School of Theology, have their theology in order. They understand that being blessed by God is not a matter of material riches, but instead a matter of the peace, contentment, and pleasure inherent in a close personal relationship with Christ. The product of this peace is a deep desire and commitment to “love thy neighbor” by virtue of direct or indirect action; for example, reduced consumption of material resources, the boycott of products manufactured through inhumane working conditions, or the promotion of renewable resources.
I, however, happen to come from a Non-Denominational Christian tradition that often dips into what could easily be termed “prosperity teaching” – the notion that if you give (money, usually), God will bless you hundred-fold. This theology within the Non-Denominational context can, and has often led to, exactly what De La Torre describes in his quote regarding “the pauperization of two-thirds of the world’s population.” As Americans, we live in a country whose very prosperity was gained at the cost of other human beings; to subscribe to a theology that states that as American Christians we live at an unprecedented level of comfort and convenience because of our devotion to God is horribly misguided.
Some answers regarding the alleviation of this situation can be found in a renewed hermeneutics within some church contexts (Non-Denominational being just one). As Richard Amesbury and George N. Newlands state in Faith and Human Rights: Christianity and the Global Struggle for Human Dignity:
“We argue that while faith has much of value to contribute here, the world’s religions (including Christianity) will require vigilant hermeneutical reappraisal and critical retrieval if they are to function as genuine partners in the global struggle for human dignity” (Amesbury and Newland, xi).
Obviously, this renewed hermeneutic requires that we see all humanity – rich or poor, American or non-American, Christian or non-Christian – as precious and worth serving and nurturing. One such hermeneutic is offered by Catherine Mowry LaCugna in her book Freeing Theology.
While focusing specifically on a feminist theology, LaCugna’s doctrine of God proves useful for all of humanity. Stressing that God is equal with Christ in the Trinity, and therefore no hierarchy exists within our communion with God, all people, “Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female” (Galatians 3:28), are equal (and valuable) in the sight of God. As LaCugna writes,
“The life of Jesus Christ is at odds with the sexist theology of complementarity, the racist theology of white superiority, the clerical theology of cultic privilege, the political theology of exploitation and economic injustice, and the patriarchal theology of male dominance and control” (LaCugna, p.99).
In summary, those American Christians who subscribe to the notion that as Americans we have been, or will be, blessed because of our devotion to God need to recognize the imbalance that has occurred due to our own greed and gain a new theology that stresses the reality that when we have, someone else “has not,” and when someone “has not” we should share in their pain and work to alleviate it; otherwise, we are doing little else than repeating the worst mistakes of our Christian history.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Which Side is Right?
by Sharon Mann
Israel? Palestine? Neither? Both?
I cannot be the friend of the Israeli, IF I cannot be the friend of the Palestinian. I cannot be the friend to the Palestinian, IF I cannot be the friend to the Israeli. Holding them both and striving to understand their issues makes me realize both have a place in the world.
When traveling in the West Bank a little more than a year ago, what I gained was a perspective of how precious the land is to everyone. The class I traveled with and those I learned from included Arch Bishop Elias Chacour with whom we spent an afternoon studying the issues of the people of Galilee. “This land, this place they arguing over is the home to people”. He went on to describe they are moms, dads, grandmothers, and brothers and sisters and daughters. People, going to the school to work, to the grocery, to the library and to the doctor or to the nurse.
Before you can decide who is right we must look at the argument.
I share with you an email that was forwarded to me from a member in the faith community where I serve. Benjamin Netanyahu, recently elected Prime Minister of Israel, gave an interview and was asked about Israel's occupation of Arab lands entitled, "Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict."
Here are overlooked “facts” in the current circulation concerning the Middle East situation. These were compiled by an unidentified Christian university professor from BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY. I have added validation from archived research materials, from various texts of former President Carter and his library where I served a full year as an intern, and WE Belong to the Land by Arch Bishop Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Israeli living for peace and reconciliation. Eye witness to 1947-48 the November 29, 1947 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 and the Diaspora that ensued in Palestine with Israel.
The numbered items are statements from the circulated email and the italicized comments the statements which are reconciled with data from the above mentioned sources. “It's our land”...By: Benjamin Netanyahu
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 Before Common Era (BCE), Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.
3. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.
4. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
5. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanah, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
6. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.1870 7,000 Jews in Palestine (2% of population). Large- Scale Zionist (a traditional faith focus) immigration begins in early 20 CE.
1930-46 Jews flee Nazis seek haven in Palestine and all over the world. Land ownership is 92% Palestinian, 8% Jewish. Zionist (a traditional belief focus) forces expel 750,000+ Palestinians or approximately 75% of the population from their homes. Six months into the expulsion Israel declares independence. In 1947 Britain allows the U.N. to decide what to do about Palestine, which is partitioned into Jewish, Arab, and International areas (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) 55% of the Territory is allocated to the Jewish state. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are now independent States.
7. (continued) Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
Britain, in 1948 mandated Israel over Palestine and declared Israel’s independence as a nation. Arab armies attacked and Israel prevailed. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 establishes a conciliation commission and asserts that refugees wishing to return to their homes AND live in PEACE be allowed to do so, that compensation be paid to others, and that free access to the holy places are assured.
8. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and program.
9. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
10. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey
11. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
12. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
1967 Israel occupies ALL remaining Palestinian lands in Six-Day War. The Occupation has continued for 40+ years.
Was U.N General Assembly Resolution 194 in the above situation honored? (1988)
13. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.
14. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
15. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
16. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.
17. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
18. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. (During the class trip we were denied access to the Dome of the Rock by Israeli soldiers, our guide was Palestinian, 2008)
Six months later, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is passed, confirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force and calling for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories, the right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized borders, and a just solution to the refugee problem.
Palestinian resistance continues, mostly nonviolent, sometimes violent (sadly first suicide bombing occurred in 1994). From that time until now Jews worldwide are invited by Israel to live on the refugees’ land solely on the basis of their religious belief / way of life and their ethnicity.
The data supports many of these claims and refutes others. Research for yourself. When looking at the facts it is important to know the source. Some is easily verified. Credible websites such as Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/, UN OCHA, www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt are both good sites to begin your search for what is RIGHT!
So what is the bottom line?
I believe we must hold both sides of this issue. Why? On a sunny January afternoon 2008, standing on a top floor office overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, Arch Bishop Chacour recounted his story in a clear voice. As a 5-year old boy he watched how the soldiers came to take his father and brothers away from their home. Later, he and his mother and sisters left their olive groves and their home in Gush to live as refugees for the rest of their lives. Why? Ethnicity, religion, skin color.
Which side is RIGHT? BOTH? NEITHER? We must hold both sides for you cannot be a friend to one without being a friend to the other.
Israel? Palestine? Neither? Both?
I cannot be the friend of the Israeli, IF I cannot be the friend of the Palestinian. I cannot be the friend to the Palestinian, IF I cannot be the friend to the Israeli. Holding them both and striving to understand their issues makes me realize both have a place in the world.
When traveling in the West Bank a little more than a year ago, what I gained was a perspective of how precious the land is to everyone. The class I traveled with and those I learned from included Arch Bishop Elias Chacour with whom we spent an afternoon studying the issues of the people of Galilee. “This land, this place they arguing over is the home to people”. He went on to describe they are moms, dads, grandmothers, and brothers and sisters and daughters. People, going to the school to work, to the grocery, to the library and to the doctor or to the nurse.
Before you can decide who is right we must look at the argument.
I share with you an email that was forwarded to me from a member in the faith community where I serve. Benjamin Netanyahu, recently elected Prime Minister of Israel, gave an interview and was asked about Israel's occupation of Arab lands entitled, "Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict."
Here are overlooked “facts” in the current circulation concerning the Middle East situation. These were compiled by an unidentified Christian university professor from BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY. I have added validation from archived research materials, from various texts of former President Carter and his library where I served a full year as an intern, and WE Belong to the Land by Arch Bishop Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Israeli living for peace and reconciliation. Eye witness to 1947-48 the November 29, 1947 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 and the Diaspora that ensued in Palestine with Israel.
The numbered items are statements from the circulated email and the italicized comments the statements which are reconciled with data from the above mentioned sources. “It's our land”...By: Benjamin Netanyahu
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 Before Common Era (BCE), Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.
3. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.
4. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
5. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanah, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
6. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.1870 7,000 Jews in Palestine (2% of population). Large- Scale Zionist (a traditional faith focus) immigration begins in early 20 CE.
1930-46 Jews flee Nazis seek haven in Palestine and all over the world. Land ownership is 92% Palestinian, 8% Jewish. Zionist (a traditional belief focus) forces expel 750,000+ Palestinians or approximately 75% of the population from their homes. Six months into the expulsion Israel declares independence. In 1947 Britain allows the U.N. to decide what to do about Palestine, which is partitioned into Jewish, Arab, and International areas (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) 55% of the Territory is allocated to the Jewish state. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are now independent States.
7. (continued) Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
Britain, in 1948 mandated Israel over Palestine and declared Israel’s independence as a nation. Arab armies attacked and Israel prevailed. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 establishes a conciliation commission and asserts that refugees wishing to return to their homes AND live in PEACE be allowed to do so, that compensation be paid to others, and that free access to the holy places are assured.
8. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and program.
9. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
10. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey
11. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
12. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
1967 Israel occupies ALL remaining Palestinian lands in Six-Day War. The Occupation has continued for 40+ years.
Was U.N General Assembly Resolution 194 in the above situation honored? (1988)
13. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.
14. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
15. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
16. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.
17. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
18. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. (During the class trip we were denied access to the Dome of the Rock by Israeli soldiers, our guide was Palestinian, 2008)
Six months later, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is passed, confirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force and calling for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories, the right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized borders, and a just solution to the refugee problem.
Palestinian resistance continues, mostly nonviolent, sometimes violent (sadly first suicide bombing occurred in 1994). From that time until now Jews worldwide are invited by Israel to live on the refugees’ land solely on the basis of their religious belief / way of life and their ethnicity.
The data supports many of these claims and refutes others. Research for yourself. When looking at the facts it is important to know the source. Some is easily verified. Credible websites such as Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/, UN OCHA, www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt are both good sites to begin your search for what is RIGHT!
So what is the bottom line?
I believe we must hold both sides of this issue. Why? On a sunny January afternoon 2008, standing on a top floor office overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, Arch Bishop Chacour recounted his story in a clear voice. As a 5-year old boy he watched how the soldiers came to take his father and brothers away from their home. Later, he and his mother and sisters left their olive groves and their home in Gush to live as refugees for the rest of their lives. Why? Ethnicity, religion, skin color.
Which side is RIGHT? BOTH? NEITHER? We must hold both sides for you cannot be a friend to one without being a friend to the other.
Faith and Politics from a Targeted Perspective
Jonathan Visitacion
As I was sitting in our Christian Ethics class last week, I was mesmerized by the dialogue pertaining to the notion that faith and politics should be separated. We used the example of Proposition 8,
I have always assumed that Christian communities are chain reacting targets of the political process, where both republicans and democrats are fighting for the Christian vote. If you can get a leader of a particular Christian community, you may be able to get the vote of the entire Christian community associated with him/her. That is not to say that churches do not play an active political role; almost every church denomination has lobbyist group working at the state and federal level. However, like any community, if there are members of a particular group who acts on a belief of the general community, it may be likely that everybody in that community will believe the same thing and do the same action themselves.
How does this actually change the influence of faith and politics? A nation founded on the separation of church and state is still subject to the influence of a majority vote from Christian communities. However, Christians have this relationship of belief and action – that it is inherent to act Christian if you believe you are Christian. Christianity has been forming the last 2000 years through rebellion, martyrdom, colonialism, evangelism, revolutions, protest marches, relief work, etc…it seems that a democratic process would be a walk in the park. Trying to unpack a book written by John B. Cobb called Reclaiming the church, the commitment of the majority of Christians in today’s society has been reduced to tithing; even voter-influencing is not permitted by the church or else they lose their non-profit status. However the church stands in the forefront of social morals and ethics and acts upon them as well, even if it does show in the political arena.
Does that mean the outcome for Proposition 8 was just? I remember going to church the Sunday before the election, and the reverend gave a sermon on Proposition 8, and explained the stance of the
Could it be that the outcome of Proposition 8 was just a sign of the times? Are Californians just not ready for same-sex marriages as they thought they were? I recently took a world religions class that required a site visit at a Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic houses of worship, as well as listening to a religious leader associated with each. Almost everyone of those religious leaders were asked a question pertaining to Proposition 8, and almost every leader said they would be willing to marry a gay couple, but thought that their congregation was not ready to accept it. I may not agree with the ruling of Proposition 8, but I believe that it was a sign of our society; our state is not as ready as they thought they were for a marriage between homosexual couples. I may not understand how it got onto the voting ballot, but it did and people voted the way they wanted.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Human Clone
Sunghwan Park
When I was young, I was a big fan of science fiction films because they showed me totally different, new, and novel worlds involving things like robots, aliens and their crafts, and cloned persons. There was a movie, Blade Runner, about the human clone. In this movie, scientists successfully create a human clone called a “replicant” through an improvement of genetic technology. The replicants are made for certain objections: some are for fighting battles, some are for just sexual pleasure, and so forth. But these replicants have a very short lifespan, just four-years, because scientists don’t want them to develop emotions and a desire for independence. Meanwhile, four replicants realize this and try to expand their lives, and then, the scientists who created the replicants employ “Blade Runner” to eliminate them. What was interesting was that they used the expression of “retirement” instead of “execution” when Blade Runner killed the human clones.
Of course, this is science fiction, but it is obvious that we are getting closer to this situation with advancements in genetic technology. Already some scientists have succeeded in reproducing animals. The most famous one is Dolly, the sheep which was the first mammal to be cloned in 1996. Current geneticists have been focused on the possibility of human cloning. The movie is closer to as reality every day.
Most countries and religions, however, oppose human cloning for some ethical reasons. Most countries, therefore, impose restrictions on human cloning with the law. So, what is the human cloning and what are the problems of that? Cloning refers to reproducing an individual to have the exact same genetic components as another individual, animal, or plant. In other words, human cloning is to reproduce identical twins artificially in the lab.
Those who support human cloning insist that human clones will have a very positive influence on all humankind. According to them, human cloning will allow mankind to cure incurable disease and to extend their lifespan which is one of the biggest desires. Also, human cloning can give hope to married couples who cannot have children.
Nevertheless, most people stand against it, and I am also one of those. Of course, human cloning experiments may help people escape from the suffering of watching a loved one die. This would be what we all want. In this sense, human cloning may be able to be accepted by Utilitarianism which pursues happiness for all.
I think, however, human cloning experiments are very inhuman and dangerous acts.
When people create something, they have some purpose for it. This means that when scientists produce a human clone, they have some chief aims for the human clone. Human clones can be used for wars or pleasure or medicine. That is human clone would be degraded and be just a means to an end. In this process, human clones also could be produced in quantity according to use, and in the end, it would compromise the dignity of human life. Human cloning would certainly cause some serious unethical conduct. In addition, Christian ethics understand the human being as a creature of God with freedom. Therefore, an act to manipulate a human’s freedom (human clone) is wrong not only morally, but also religiously.
Moreover, human cloning will bring about social and religious confusion. Socially, human beings have a blood relation with their biological parents. Blood ties and families are the fundamental elements that constitute society. And then, religiously, people have a relationship with God as God’s creature. Human clones, however, will have nothing to do with biological parents or God since their parents (?) or creator would be the scientists. I, thus, strongly insist that human cloning experiments must be stopped.
When I was young, I was a big fan of science fiction films because they showed me totally different, new, and novel worlds involving things like robots, aliens and their crafts, and cloned persons. There was a movie, Blade Runner, about the human clone. In this movie, scientists successfully create a human clone called a “replicant” through an improvement of genetic technology. The replicants are made for certain objections: some are for fighting battles, some are for just sexual pleasure, and so forth. But these replicants have a very short lifespan, just four-years, because scientists don’t want them to develop emotions and a desire for independence. Meanwhile, four replicants realize this and try to expand their lives, and then, the scientists who created the replicants employ “Blade Runner” to eliminate them. What was interesting was that they used the expression of “retirement” instead of “execution” when Blade Runner killed the human clones.
Of course, this is science fiction, but it is obvious that we are getting closer to this situation with advancements in genetic technology. Already some scientists have succeeded in reproducing animals. The most famous one is Dolly, the sheep which was the first mammal to be cloned in 1996. Current geneticists have been focused on the possibility of human cloning. The movie is closer to as reality every day.
Most countries and religions, however, oppose human cloning for some ethical reasons. Most countries, therefore, impose restrictions on human cloning with the law. So, what is the human cloning and what are the problems of that? Cloning refers to reproducing an individual to have the exact same genetic components as another individual, animal, or plant. In other words, human cloning is to reproduce identical twins artificially in the lab.
Those who support human cloning insist that human clones will have a very positive influence on all humankind. According to them, human cloning will allow mankind to cure incurable disease and to extend their lifespan which is one of the biggest desires. Also, human cloning can give hope to married couples who cannot have children.
Nevertheless, most people stand against it, and I am also one of those. Of course, human cloning experiments may help people escape from the suffering of watching a loved one die. This would be what we all want. In this sense, human cloning may be able to be accepted by Utilitarianism which pursues happiness for all.
I think, however, human cloning experiments are very inhuman and dangerous acts.
When people create something, they have some purpose for it. This means that when scientists produce a human clone, they have some chief aims for the human clone. Human clones can be used for wars or pleasure or medicine. That is human clone would be degraded and be just a means to an end. In this process, human clones also could be produced in quantity according to use, and in the end, it would compromise the dignity of human life. Human cloning would certainly cause some serious unethical conduct. In addition, Christian ethics understand the human being as a creature of God with freedom. Therefore, an act to manipulate a human’s freedom (human clone) is wrong not only morally, but also religiously.
Moreover, human cloning will bring about social and religious confusion. Socially, human beings have a blood relation with their biological parents. Blood ties and families are the fundamental elements that constitute society. And then, religiously, people have a relationship with God as God’s creature. Human clones, however, will have nothing to do with biological parents or God since their parents (?) or creator would be the scientists. I, thus, strongly insist that human cloning experiments must be stopped.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Ethics in ministry settings
Judy Green-Davis
At my church, when we were going through the educational process to become open and affirming (totally inclusive), we made a videotape in which church members who were gay, parents of gay children, and straight members talked about their lives and faith. Unfortunately, this video (which was very well done and has been used in many local UCC churches) caused the dissolution of a family. One woman came out to the congregation as gay in the video. Her parents (who knew she was a lesbian) were humiliated because now everyone knew she was a lesbian. They left the church and now are distant from their daughter.
So here is a complicated ethical issue. First, the church was working to become open and inclusive. Being open and affirming became a normative belief (although at the time, it was not so; it was a relative belief). Her decision to be open about her life and her faith obviously hurt other people. It was a normative belief for her but, obviously not for her parents who have never welcomed one of her partners into their home. For the congregation, the separation was a great sadness and people disagreed about how all of this should have been handled within the family.
What should a pastor do in such a situation? Is there a role for the pastor of the church in the family problems—potentially uninvited and unwelcomed? How should pastors deal with an ethical issue such as this?
At my church, when we were going through the educational process to become open and affirming (totally inclusive), we made a videotape in which church members who were gay, parents of gay children, and straight members talked about their lives and faith. Unfortunately, this video (which was very well done and has been used in many local UCC churches) caused the dissolution of a family. One woman came out to the congregation as gay in the video. Her parents (who knew she was a lesbian) were humiliated because now everyone knew she was a lesbian. They left the church and now are distant from their daughter.
So here is a complicated ethical issue. First, the church was working to become open and inclusive. Being open and affirming became a normative belief (although at the time, it was not so; it was a relative belief). Her decision to be open about her life and her faith obviously hurt other people. It was a normative belief for her but, obviously not for her parents who have never welcomed one of her partners into their home. For the congregation, the separation was a great sadness and people disagreed about how all of this should have been handled within the family.
What should a pastor do in such a situation? Is there a role for the pastor of the church in the family problems—potentially uninvited and unwelcomed? How should pastors deal with an ethical issue such as this?
Jonestown aftermath
Judy Green-Davis
I regularly read Disciples World, the monthly publication of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the sister denomination to mine, United Church of Christ. In the November issue, the cover articles are about the Jonestown Massacres. For those of you too young to remember, thirty years ago, Rev. James Jones, an ordained minister of the Disciples, led a congregation of about 1,000 people into a jungle outpost in Guyana, South America. There, what began as a utopia of a diverse, interracial congregation dedicated to serving the poor, homeless, and those in need of medical care became a nightmare in which over 900 people died in a “revolutionary suicide” to use Jones’ term by purposely (and some against their will) ingesting poisoned Kool-Aid.
There have been many ethical questions that have faced the denomination in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. And those of us who are old enough to remember the awful incident will probably never be able to rid our retinas of the photos of the dead lying together, holding each other.
Like my denomination, the Disciples have no hierarchy, no bishop, or pope to oversee individual congregations. Jesus is the head of the church. A local church can call anyone to be their pastor and the Disciples have no authority to remove such a pastor…even one not ordained by the Disciples.
The Jonestown situation was very complex. There were prominent politicians involved, there was the actual substantial service to the poor by the congregation, and there were reports of increasing bizarre behavior by Rev. Jim Jones. But the denomination was unable to confront Jones with the issues because he was in South America. The denomination’s rules require a pastor to review the charges against him/her prior to being held in discussion about the issues. Jones was not coming back to the California/Nevada regional conference. Therefore, no charges were ever discussed.
I think the outcome of this whole dreadful story is interesting. In this issue, the Disciples recognize that their ideal of congregational freedom was at the root of the tragedy. Yet, they met afterward and decided not to change their policies. They still have no way to police ministers that go over the edge. And the same is true in my own denomination. The Disciples acknowledge in this issue of Disciples World that the same thing could happen again. I suppose it could in my own denomination.
So the ethical issue becomes, when does a nominative belief (congregational liberty) become potentially hurtful? Does the denomination curtail a nominative belief in order to prevent an outlaw relational belief by a rogue pastor? How does a denomination (which is always diverse) make a decision about a normative belief that is so potentially risky and that has proven to be disastrous?
Readers of the issue will assuredly register their ethic opinions in the December issue. What is your opinion?
I regularly read Disciples World, the monthly publication of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the sister denomination to mine, United Church of Christ. In the November issue, the cover articles are about the Jonestown Massacres. For those of you too young to remember, thirty years ago, Rev. James Jones, an ordained minister of the Disciples, led a congregation of about 1,000 people into a jungle outpost in Guyana, South America. There, what began as a utopia of a diverse, interracial congregation dedicated to serving the poor, homeless, and those in need of medical care became a nightmare in which over 900 people died in a “revolutionary suicide” to use Jones’ term by purposely (and some against their will) ingesting poisoned Kool-Aid.
There have been many ethical questions that have faced the denomination in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. And those of us who are old enough to remember the awful incident will probably never be able to rid our retinas of the photos of the dead lying together, holding each other.
Like my denomination, the Disciples have no hierarchy, no bishop, or pope to oversee individual congregations. Jesus is the head of the church. A local church can call anyone to be their pastor and the Disciples have no authority to remove such a pastor…even one not ordained by the Disciples.
The Jonestown situation was very complex. There were prominent politicians involved, there was the actual substantial service to the poor by the congregation, and there were reports of increasing bizarre behavior by Rev. Jim Jones. But the denomination was unable to confront Jones with the issues because he was in South America. The denomination’s rules require a pastor to review the charges against him/her prior to being held in discussion about the issues. Jones was not coming back to the California/Nevada regional conference. Therefore, no charges were ever discussed.
I think the outcome of this whole dreadful story is interesting. In this issue, the Disciples recognize that their ideal of congregational freedom was at the root of the tragedy. Yet, they met afterward and decided not to change their policies. They still have no way to police ministers that go over the edge. And the same is true in my own denomination. The Disciples acknowledge in this issue of Disciples World that the same thing could happen again. I suppose it could in my own denomination.
So the ethical issue becomes, when does a nominative belief (congregational liberty) become potentially hurtful? Does the denomination curtail a nominative belief in order to prevent an outlaw relational belief by a rogue pastor? How does a denomination (which is always diverse) make a decision about a normative belief that is so potentially risky and that has proven to be disastrous?
Readers of the issue will assuredly register their ethic opinions in the December issue. What is your opinion?
Christian Century
Judy Green-Davis
I have never posted to a blog and don’t normally even read blogs. But what I do read is the weekly magazine “Christian Century.” In the Jan. 27, 2009 issue, there is an article by Barbara Brown Taylor who is wrestling with questions of theology and ethics. You might want to go on line to read the text in full; there’s good fodder there for a sermon.
Taylor quotes Duke ethicist Stanley Hauerwas who says, “most Christians are too spiritual in the practice of their faith. Christianity ‘is not a set of beliefs or doctrines one believes in order to be a good Christian but rather Christianity is to have one’s body shaped, one’s habits determined, in such a way that the worship of God is unavoidable.’” Taylor’s point is that doctrines must “take on flesh.” She believes that faith has to include our daily life, our sensual activities, and our ordinariness to be true. She asserts that Hauerwas is asking us if “whether there is anything besides the body that can be sanctified.” And don’t you think that’s why the Bible focuses so much on daily activities—in the kitchen, the garden, the street, among the people, at the threshing floor, on the road? We don’t read about God holding a board meeting or Jesus consulting with CEOs. We read about real life, real people, and real situations.
Whew! Taylor brings it down to brass tacks when she quotes Daniel Berrigan (and for sure I’m going to use this quote in a sermon one day) who says, “It all comes down to this: Whose flesh are you touching and why? Whose flesh are you recoiling from and why? Whose flesh are you burning and why?”
Doesn’t this embody the questions we’ve been asked to think about in our first few classes….who’s benefiting, who’s losing, and where are you coming from on this argument? I think Berrigan’s comments are a good litmus test for ethics. Taylor and Hauerwas give us a good grounding for theology—the spiritual is not enough, the real must be included. God is at the molecular level in our lives; our theology has to go to our very cells to be true (or as Hauerwas says, so that the worship of God is unavoidable.” Selah.
I have never posted to a blog and don’t normally even read blogs. But what I do read is the weekly magazine “Christian Century.” In the Jan. 27, 2009 issue, there is an article by Barbara Brown Taylor who is wrestling with questions of theology and ethics. You might want to go on line to read the text in full; there’s good fodder there for a sermon.
Taylor quotes Duke ethicist Stanley Hauerwas who says, “most Christians are too spiritual in the practice of their faith. Christianity ‘is not a set of beliefs or doctrines one believes in order to be a good Christian but rather Christianity is to have one’s body shaped, one’s habits determined, in such a way that the worship of God is unavoidable.’” Taylor’s point is that doctrines must “take on flesh.” She believes that faith has to include our daily life, our sensual activities, and our ordinariness to be true. She asserts that Hauerwas is asking us if “whether there is anything besides the body that can be sanctified.” And don’t you think that’s why the Bible focuses so much on daily activities—in the kitchen, the garden, the street, among the people, at the threshing floor, on the road? We don’t read about God holding a board meeting or Jesus consulting with CEOs. We read about real life, real people, and real situations.
Whew! Taylor brings it down to brass tacks when she quotes Daniel Berrigan (and for sure I’m going to use this quote in a sermon one day) who says, “It all comes down to this: Whose flesh are you touching and why? Whose flesh are you recoiling from and why? Whose flesh are you burning and why?”
Doesn’t this embody the questions we’ve been asked to think about in our first few classes….who’s benefiting, who’s losing, and where are you coming from on this argument? I think Berrigan’s comments are a good litmus test for ethics. Taylor and Hauerwas give us a good grounding for theology—the spiritual is not enough, the real must be included. God is at the molecular level in our lives; our theology has to go to our very cells to be true (or as Hauerwas says, so that the worship of God is unavoidable.” Selah.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Strict Father Morality and Conservative Christianity
I thought it would be a good idea to use this posting as an opportunity to present some preliminary ideas for my final paper and hopefully receive some feedback.
Recently I have been reading Moral Politics by George Lakoff [1]. His basic premise is that the disparity between liberal and conservative worldviews can be attributed to subconscious metaphors that provide the basis for people’s moral thinking. Furthermore, these metaphors serve as the governing principle for people’s decisions. Examining these metaphors, therefore, will lead to an understanding of the assumptions people have when making moral decisions. Lakoff shows that strict father morality is the undergirding principle that much of conservative Christianity subscribes to. Furthermore, he points out that the rhetoric of biblical authority and God’s law as used today is nothing more than the projection of strict father morality onto God. I intend to show how this governing metaphor has drastic implications for human rights and equality.
I will focus primarily on Lakoff’s description of strict father morality which he claims is the underlying metaphor governing conservative ideology. It should be noted that Lakoff is a cognitive scientist and his research focuses primarily on Radial Categories which cannot be defined by a list of properties shared by all members of the category. Instead, “they are characterized by variations on a central model.”[2] What this means is that strict father morality is a central category and not all who identify as conservative will fall strictly into this category but will derive their tenets based upon this central category. There will be many variations on the central model and though the process is complex these variations are systematically derived from the central model. “The theory of radial categories claims that variations should be systematic in a certain way, determined by the application of parameters of variation to the central model.”[3]
Lakoff points out that strict father morality is comprised of several metaphors which are not unique to it. These metaphors are found in other cultures throughout the world. It is the prioritization and organization of these metaphors that yield the strict father morality system.
Lakoff also shows that strict father morality functions at a subconscious level and is not readily known by its adherents. Thus, the decisions and moral outlook based on the metaphors that comprise the strict father system are seen as common sense and part of the natural order.
My hypothesis is that within a Christian framework this system of morality is viewed as originating from God and seen as a divine command. Thus, God becomes the ultimate enforcer of a morality that has drastic consequences for social and economic justice. In my opinion, creating an awareness of the underlying systems of morality will help to create a plurality of options for change as well as downplay absolutism and radical dualism. In addition, if we can understand how the mind categorizes it will help alleviate the projection of cognitive creations onto God or nature, and hopefully bring about the recognition that ultimate claims are spurious.
[1] George Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2nd ed.; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002).
[2] Lakoff, Moral Politics, 8.
[3] Lakoff, Moral Politics, 285.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Vegetarianism
This morning I had blood drawn at the doctor’s office. I am rather eager to learn the results, especially concerning my red blood cell count because lately I have been dealing with anemia. I am iron deficient; most likely because of my vegetarian diet. This has been frustrating because it’s affecting my immune system. I keep getting sick. So why, when my health is being affected negatively do I continue to choose to be a vegetarian? This is not an easy choice for me. It is something I consciously choose everyday and for me it is very much an ethical choice, which is why I chose to focus on it for my blog topic.
To begin I would like to describe my vegetarian diet. I, according to many, would not be a true vegetarian. I mainly am a lacto-ovo-pescatarian. I eat dairy, eggs, and fish. However, lately, due to my struggle with anemia I have been including some high iron meat to my diet. Technically I would be considered a “flexitarian”, a person who mainly eats vegetarian but sometimes eats meat. Although I like this word I choose to use vegetarian so that people know not to feed me meat.
I decided to become a vegetarian because I thought it was time to admit that the conditions the animals go through are wrong. I had known for sometime that animals raised for meat have horrible living conditions. I don’t have room to go into descriptions of the conditions but if you want to go to PETA’s website (http://www.peta.org/) they have plenty of information and even scaring videos. I chose to be vegetarian because I did not want to financially support a system that tortures animals. I do not consider it ethical that creatures that feel pain should suffer like that nor is it ethical that I participate, through consumption, in that treatment.
The reason why I wanted to blog about this is not because I am a card carrying PETA member who is trying proselytize her classmates but that I want this ethical choice of mine to be taken seriously as an ethical choice. Vegetarianism is constantly dismissed. Often times when I simply state I am a vegetarian people will mock me and go on about how much they love eating meat and how they want to go out that very moment and get a bunch of meat as if they wish to counteract my vegetarianism by consuming even more meat. This happened to me several times in undergrad in an ethics class where we were discussing animal rights.
A more subtle dismissal is when it is merely regarded as a lifestyle choice. As if the reason I am a vegetarian is purely arbitrary similar to a choice to wear sandals over high heals and not based on values. It ignores the fact that is my response to the suffering of those on the margins of society. Can I even say that animals are members of society? Many consider society human and therefore exclude the other creatures we share this planet with. In addition to that my choice is dismissed as having nothing to do with Christianity. What I consider my response to “the imprisoned” and to “the least of these” is considered either as superfluous to Christian values and/or in direct contraction to command to “dominate” in Genesis and therefore unchristian. An ethical choice for me, which has lead to a very serious life change, is regarded by many as unimportant, unethical and even a nuisance by having to provide vegetarian meal options.
These dismissals I have experienced tell me that many do not consider animal rights an ethical issue. Or, if it is it should be secondary to human needs. Which brings me to a new reason why I am vegetarian. I have learned since making the original choice that eating meat, especially red meat, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Here is an article that offers more information than I can give right now: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15/opinion/ed-methane15. Apparently livestock emissions pose a much greater threat to the environment than all cars, trains, and planes. Add onto that the damage created to the environment by deforestation and the energy needed to create crops to feed livestock and we have a serious environmental problem. Therefore, our consumption of meat isn’t just an arbitrary concern for animal lovers such as myself but rather the future of our planet and the future of humanity itself are at stake.
All of that being said, I don’t think the solution is for everyone to become vegetarian. I think more people should become vegetarian but I don’t think it’s for everybody. As I stated earlier, I am considered more of a flexitarian than a true vegetarian. I do struggle with continuing to not eat meat. I am very concerned about my health so in addition to iron supplements I will eat some meat. I also struggle with my own challenges. I stated that I consider it unethical to participate in the suffering of other being, however, I still eat eggs, dairy and fish. The chickens that lay the eggs I eat suffer in terrible conditions along with the ones that are used for meat. If I purchase eggs for myself I make sure they are at least cage free if not free range and organic; however I also eat eggs at restaurants where the eggs most likely aren’t cage free. I also have a challenge to consume less dairy products. I have switched to organic milk but my cheese isn’t always organic and either way the cattle emissions still affection the environment. Even consuming fish has its environmental impact. We are vastly depleting our oceans’ fish supplies and affecting the environment that way. If I were to push myself to follow my values strictly I would probably become vegan. But in addition to valuing the sustainability of the environment, I am interesting in the sustainability of human persons. I struggle with being a vegetarian. My health and my social life are affected greatly. All of this can wear on a person. Therefore I think it is important that we lesson how much we consume rather than cut meat and animal products out all together.
P.S. For those who are Mac users I found I could not paste into the blog using Safari. I don't know if you can use Mozilla but just know Safari does not work.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Welcome
This is the class blog for Christian Traditions - Ethics.
The following is an excerpt from the class syllabus and relates to the blog:
Enjoy!
The following is an excerpt from the class syllabus and relates to the blog:
In addition to a final paper (see below) you will have a choice between two assignments focused on engaging non-academic audiences. Those who opt for the former will write (and ideally give) a sermon on an ethics-related theme. Those who opt for the latter will write an original essay for the class blog.
In addition, everyone (irrespective of their choice of assignments) will also be expected to (a) read all of the other blog entries posted each week; and (b) to reply to at least 10 of these.
Those who wish to write a sermon should consult with me on guidelines. Instructions for blogging are as follows:
Your original entry (if you select option 2) should be no fewer than 500 and no greater than 1000 words in length. Response postings can be as long or as short as you desire. I would suggest composing each entry in Word (or a similar program), then cutting and pasting onto the blog. Be sure to save copies in Word for yourself, in case technical problems arise when posting. These are minimum requirements that all students are expected to satisfy. However, you are permitted – and indeed encouraged – to participate more frequently. This will help raise your grade for this part of the course.
Your job is to offer intelligent, informed analysis of a current issue in well crafted prose. A good model (and source of interesting religion analysis) is the website "http://religiondispatches.org". These postings will be graded and should be well researched, organized, edited, and proofread. If (in my judgment) a posting needs editing or rethinking, or if it is offensive, I will take it down and ask you to revise it. Only students registered for the course and I will be able to post entries, but the blog will be accessible to everyone online, and anyone is free to respond to what we have posted.
A good entry will involve your own viewpoint, without simply stating an undefended opinion. A good reply will engage with an earlier entry, without simply repeating what was said already: remember that a genuine conversation develops over time. Keep in mind that although it is fine to disagree with what someone else has said, it is important to do so in a way that is polite and constructive. If someone says something that makes you angry, pause and take a breath before firing off a reply! Remember that once you post an entry, it will no longer be editable and will be visible to everyone.
Although the blog can be accessed virtually anywhere, it is worth remembering that computer labs are available at CST. For technical assistance, contact CST Information Technology at computersupport@cst.edu or IThelp@cst.edu.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
