Circumcision procedure has been an issue during the past few years among certain Christian families in culturally diverse United States of America. Parents often take this issue to the court so they could panelize doctors or pediatricians who perform the circumcision without informing the parents. Most of the young immigrants who come to the united sates do not speak or understand the English language properly. When they go to the hospital they are forced to sign documents without understanding the content. Nurses and doctors are always in a hurry and there is no one else to explain or translate for them. They sign those papers and later on they get into trouble, or they get services that they never intended to have done.
Lately, a lady came to our church and started telling us a story that made us think about taking an action towards this matter. This lady explained that while she was in labor, she was forced to sign a paper which apparently later on she found out that was a consent form to circumcise her son. A few days later another lady called the church and told us another story. While in the hospital after her delivery four different nurses came in to take the baby out for the same reason. Well, luckily she was able to prevent them before going on through the procedure.
Now, there are different questions to ask. Has God created the man perfectly? If yes, then why do the doctors insist upon having to cut away a body part? Is this a matter of making more money? Or what? It is interesting to know, what does the Christianity says about this issue. Is this a cultural, religious, health or human right preference? Does the person have the right to know or make decisions about his own body?
In my opinion God created everything and everyone perfectly. There is not a single thing that should be considered unnecessary in human body. What ever we have in and or on our bodies are needed. According to Genesis, God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his house hold members, children, family members and his slaves as an everlasting agreement with their flesh. Those who were not circumcised were to be cut off from their tribes. (Genesis 17:10-14) On the other hand we read in Paul’s letter to the Galatians in New Testament “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor un-circumcision means anything, but faith working through love”. (Gal 5:6)
If we consider the health issues, 99.8% of men living in my hometown have not been circumcised and they do not complain from their health in relation to that. Culturally, circumcision is not acceptable among certain people. From a medical point of view we live in twenty first century. There are lots of possibilities to prevent from venereal diseases and keep ourselves in a better hygienic level than two thousand years ago. When it comes to religion we can refer to Paul’s letter (as I mentioned).
Now the biggest question lies in human rights. When a new born baby’s body part is taken away without his knowledge, what are the possibilities that after growing up he will disagree? And if circumcision is not a necessity, and done for any other reason. Isn’t true that the person has to decide what should happen to his body? After all it’s a human right issue to decide what someone should do with their body.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
How Do We Overcome Colorblindness?
I recently attended the Transforming the Church conference here at Claremont. When Professor Fulkerson of Duke Divinity School addressed the issue of racism, she spoke of “colorblindness” being a new form of racism. To paraphrase, she continued saying that denying another’s race and assimilating it to our own diminishes aspects of the other race. She said that we must recognize and celebrate our racial differences rather than pretend there are none. While I agree with her completely, I find myself at a loss when actually trying to practice this.
Let me be the first to admit that no matter what side I take or what I think is right or wrong, I can only speak from my own social location. I am a primarily white (definitely white in appearance) female raised in a privileged household in the United States. I attended a junior high school where I was by far the minority, but other than that I was probably amongst the majority for the rest of my education, at least racially speaking. In college, I went to school with many international students spanning the entire world. With that being said, I read the first account in Traci C. West’s Disruptive Christian Ethics called “Welcome to Our Church, White Church” (West 113-116) and I thought of Professor Fulkerson’s comments. West gives some of her personal accounts of being an African American woman visiting white Protestant churches (her denomination), where she encountered white people attempting to be nice but making racially offensive comments without even realizing what they were doing. One example she gave consisted of members of the congregation apparently staring at her and then seeing her and upon her remark, “Good Morning,” they replied, “Welcome to our church” (West 114). Another example she gave told of a woman from the choir at a visiting church, who later approached West and mentioned that she had noticed West during the service and said that she said to herself, “Now I just know that gal can sing. We ought to get her up here to do it” (West 115). I can clearly see why she would be offended by both comments. I understand that the first implies that she looks different; therefore she must not be a member of their church, even a lapsed member, so they labeled her as a stranger. I understand that the second racially stereotypes, assuming all black people can sing.
I consider this new form of racism under the guise of colorblindness and I wonder how West’s situations and similar situations should be handled. In the first situation, I think it is unfair to overlook the fact that West was indeed a visitor in a predominately white church. Yes, the congregation most likely saw that she was African American and not one of the African American people that they recognized from regular service, and probably did not recognize from town so they assumed she was an outsider, which she was. They welcomed her to their church and went about their business. In my opinion, they recognized a racial difference and moved on, as Professor Fulkerson called us to do. In the second situation, the woman from the choir obviously stereotyped so the argument here is not as easy to make. While I think it is probably fair to assume that she had meant the comment to be a compliment, assuming that African American people can sing, she did stereotype and in this case it did not fit. West later admits that she cannot actually carry a tune (West 115). However, I feel that I can make the argument (not that I necessarily agree with it) that the woman from the choir was also recognizing a difference between many African American people and many white people. So, how should these two instances have been handled in order to celebrate and recognize our racial differences while still respecting each other?
I personally find this to be a difficult issue. I personally agree with Professor Fulkerson but I also feel that presently a person who is in the racial majority has very little room for error when making any sort of a comment recognize a racial difference. I think that in order to truly rid ourselves of racism, the racial majority must be able to speak respectfully and with good intentions, and should they make an offensive comment without being aware, it should be brought to their attention in an equally respectful manner. I do not think that any member of the racial minority should have to be subject to offensive stereotypes or different treatment because of race. I believe they should take pride in their race regardless of how represented (or unrepresented) it is, but I also think they should be careful not try to find every instance they can to criticize the majority or even another minority race for inadvertently making an offensive comment. But again, where do you draw the line? I suppose the crux of my issue is how does one differentiate between a stereotype or an unwarranted assumption (assuming both are made with good intentions) and a recognition and celebration of our differences?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Human Right to Water for All
In the discussion of universal human rights, there is nothing more basic than the human right to water. As one of the foundational needs of life, this issue is an ethical dilemma of global proportions. The human right to water pertains to sufficient, safe, accessible, and affordable water for all people. This basic right is recognized generally in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (Article 3 — Right to life, liberty, and Personal Security; and Article 25 — Right to an Adequate Living Standard) and specifically recognized in various international treaties. However, we are in the midst of a water crisis of global proportions as the right to water is being eroded by the inclusion of water as commodity in other international trade treaties and conventions and as we face the effects of worsening climate change due to global warming, environmental pollution, and an increasing world population. As is often the case, it comes down to a matter of power, both political and economic, as the victims in the water crisis are generally poor, women, and racial and ethnic minorities.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) argues that the roots of the crisis can be traced to the issues of poverty and inequality and demonstrates how the lack of water creates cycles of poverty, gender inequity, disease and death. Unfortunately the international community has yet to make this issue a priority and so this basic human right is denied to millions of people. The issue is not the amount of water available; there is not a shortage of water. The issue rather is focusing attention on the extreme human toll of dirty water and inadequate sanitation which is the second largest killer of children worldwide, and creating a will to reverse the situation.
The current situation is sobering with millions of lives at stake. The situation grows worse by the day, especially in light of the effects of global warming. On March 12, 2009, thousands of climate scientists meeting in Copenhagen updated the findings of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of U.N. talks in December on a new global climate treaty. Their conclusion issued a strong warning that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatens to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet. The shifts include changing rainfall patterns (in which dry areas become dryer and wet areas become wetter) an increase in extreme weather events and a drastic rise in sea levels. All these issues relate to the issue of water as a basic human right and will continue to grow in the future.
The hope for mitigating climate change (at least to some extent) lies in the de-carbonization of the global atmosphere and political will regarding this issue remains to be seen. Yet the cost to rectify the basic situation regarding access to clean, accessible and affordable water for all is relatively modest. It is estimated that 10 billion dollars would drastically improve access to water and sanitation for millions of people and save the lives of 1.8 million children annually. Although this price tag seems enormous, it equals what the world governments spend on military hardware alone every eight days. What is lacking is the will on the part of the international community to make this issue a top priority.
As Professor Amesbury states in Faith and Human Rights, “the biggest impediment to the realization in practice of human rights remains the lack of adequate mechanisms for enforcement.” (37) Amesbury notes further that the pressure of public opinion usually carries more weight than the threat of collective action. So where does that leave us? As a Unitarian Universalist who affirms the inherent worth and dignity of all people and understands the interdependent web of existence of we are but a part (our first and seventh principles), the issue of water as a basic human right is of utmost importance. Raising awareness about this issue and supporting efforts to prioritize water rights locally, statewide, nationally and globally is vital to making a change.
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) argues that the roots of the crisis can be traced to the issues of poverty and inequality and demonstrates how the lack of water creates cycles of poverty, gender inequity, disease and death. Unfortunately the international community has yet to make this issue a priority and so this basic human right is denied to millions of people. The issue is not the amount of water available; there is not a shortage of water. The issue rather is focusing attention on the extreme human toll of dirty water and inadequate sanitation which is the second largest killer of children worldwide, and creating a will to reverse the situation.
The current situation is sobering with millions of lives at stake. The situation grows worse by the day, especially in light of the effects of global warming. On March 12, 2009, thousands of climate scientists meeting in Copenhagen updated the findings of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of U.N. talks in December on a new global climate treaty. Their conclusion issued a strong warning that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatens to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet. The shifts include changing rainfall patterns (in which dry areas become dryer and wet areas become wetter) an increase in extreme weather events and a drastic rise in sea levels. All these issues relate to the issue of water as a basic human right and will continue to grow in the future.
The hope for mitigating climate change (at least to some extent) lies in the de-carbonization of the global atmosphere and political will regarding this issue remains to be seen. Yet the cost to rectify the basic situation regarding access to clean, accessible and affordable water for all is relatively modest. It is estimated that 10 billion dollars would drastically improve access to water and sanitation for millions of people and save the lives of 1.8 million children annually. Although this price tag seems enormous, it equals what the world governments spend on military hardware alone every eight days. What is lacking is the will on the part of the international community to make this issue a top priority.
As Professor Amesbury states in Faith and Human Rights, “the biggest impediment to the realization in practice of human rights remains the lack of adequate mechanisms for enforcement.” (37) Amesbury notes further that the pressure of public opinion usually carries more weight than the threat of collective action. So where does that leave us? As a Unitarian Universalist who affirms the inherent worth and dignity of all people and understands the interdependent web of existence of we are but a part (our first and seventh principles), the issue of water as a basic human right is of utmost importance. Raising awareness about this issue and supporting efforts to prioritize water rights locally, statewide, nationally and globally is vital to making a change.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Prejudice and Racism
By Jimmy McCarty
During the Olympic Games this past summer these pictures of the Spanish men's Olympic basketball team, and Spanish Olympic women's tennis team, became public:
and this picture of one of the Jonas Brothers
also became public. Apparently, the "hot" new thing to do when taking group pictures is to slant one's eyes to "look" Asian. As someone who as a child dealt with being called a "gook" by overzealous white children looking for a way to elevate their social status I find the gestures offensive. Now, I'm not here to necessarily bash Miley or the Jonas boy, they're kids and do stupid things, but I am a little troubled by the use of such gestures to make a "funny" photo.
One word that has been used a lot to describe these pictures is "racist." While I am offended by the pictures, and think they are demeaning to a large percentage of the earth's population (including my mother and myself), I do not think they are, nor do I think it helpful to call them, racist. Do they display prejudice? Yes. Are they offensive? Yes. Are they racist? No.
Asian-Americans, like myself and Cho, do face certain forms of discrimination and racism in this nation. I do not, however, think this is one of them. And I am sure that calling them such diminishes the impact of the word when it is appropriately applied to racist structures and institutions.
For someone, or something, to be racist they must have power. Not only must they have power, they must have enough power to keep a person or people group subjugated and in an inferior position because of racial or ethnic identity. Finally, they must not only possess this degree of power, but must actually use it to oppress a people group. Peoples of Asian descent have faced racism in this country. (The treatment of the Japanese in internment camps in WWII is just one example of this.) However, with Asians attending college at a higher percentage, and several groups of Asians (like Indians and Japanese) earning a higher average wage than whites, I think we must be careful when thinking about how racism affects our lives. (I do not mean to diminish the experience of the Hmong and other Asian ethnic groups that are facing certain racist societal structures.) Asians, and I am speaking as a 1.5 generation bi-racial Asian-American, face plenty of prejudice, discrimination and even racism, but spoiled athletes and pop singers posing in pictures with slanted eyes does not qualify as a state of oppression. This is especially true when I look at what many poor Mexican-Americans, people of Arab descent and African-Americans face in our country today. There are societal structures that literally keep them in a state of oppression.
While I agree that we should decry racial prejudice, discrimination and insensitivity I think we should call it what it is. Racism implies a particular use of power, and I think it pragmatically important that we only use the term when it is referring to such an immoral use of political, economic and social power. (For example, a white slave owner is racist, but a poor white man who thinks black people are inferior to him is prejudiced. Both are sinful, but they are different sins.) Otherwise, when we truly do face racism we will encounter what I call the "Sharpton Effect" and we will be dismissed as simply angry minorities who have a complex that we need to get over.
So, please decry the pictures. Let people know that it is offensive to use such gestures, but please don't going around saying it is proof of racism against Asians in America. There is much more we could point to to prove that point. (I would argue that the fact that this hasn't gotten the mainstream news coverage the "Barack the Magic Negro" song, or Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" comment, received is a form of racism, but the pictures themselves aren't.) This is simply ignorant and insensitive people being caught in a compromising position.
During the Olympic Games this past summer these pictures of the Spanish men's Olympic basketball team, and Spanish Olympic women's tennis team, became public:
In recent weeks this picture of Miley Cyrus
and this picture of one of the Jonas Brothers
also became public. Apparently, the "hot" new thing to do when taking group pictures is to slant one's eyes to "look" Asian. As someone who as a child dealt with being called a "gook" by overzealous white children looking for a way to elevate their social status I find the gestures offensive. Now, I'm not here to necessarily bash Miley or the Jonas boy, they're kids and do stupid things, but I am a little troubled by the use of such gestures to make a "funny" photo.
There has been an outcry of sorts among Asian-Americans concerning these photos. Eugene Cho, a somewhat well-known Korean evangelical pastor in Seattle, has been one of the main voices speaking out against them. He has done so here and here and here. He has even posted a picture of himself widening his eyes to demonstrate how ridiculous and offensive the gestures are:
One word that has been used a lot to describe these pictures is "racist." While I am offended by the pictures, and think they are demeaning to a large percentage of the earth's population (including my mother and myself), I do not think they are, nor do I think it helpful to call them, racist. Do they display prejudice? Yes. Are they offensive? Yes. Are they racist? No.
Asian-Americans, like myself and Cho, do face certain forms of discrimination and racism in this nation. I do not, however, think this is one of them. And I am sure that calling them such diminishes the impact of the word when it is appropriately applied to racist structures and institutions.
For someone, or something, to be racist they must have power. Not only must they have power, they must have enough power to keep a person or people group subjugated and in an inferior position because of racial or ethnic identity. Finally, they must not only possess this degree of power, but must actually use it to oppress a people group. Peoples of Asian descent have faced racism in this country. (The treatment of the Japanese in internment camps in WWII is just one example of this.) However, with Asians attending college at a higher percentage, and several groups of Asians (like Indians and Japanese) earning a higher average wage than whites, I think we must be careful when thinking about how racism affects our lives. (I do not mean to diminish the experience of the Hmong and other Asian ethnic groups that are facing certain racist societal structures.) Asians, and I am speaking as a 1.5 generation bi-racial Asian-American, face plenty of prejudice, discrimination and even racism, but spoiled athletes and pop singers posing in pictures with slanted eyes does not qualify as a state of oppression. This is especially true when I look at what many poor Mexican-Americans, people of Arab descent and African-Americans face in our country today. There are societal structures that literally keep them in a state of oppression.
While I agree that we should decry racial prejudice, discrimination and insensitivity I think we should call it what it is. Racism implies a particular use of power, and I think it pragmatically important that we only use the term when it is referring to such an immoral use of political, economic and social power. (For example, a white slave owner is racist, but a poor white man who thinks black people are inferior to him is prejudiced. Both are sinful, but they are different sins.) Otherwise, when we truly do face racism we will encounter what I call the "Sharpton Effect" and we will be dismissed as simply angry minorities who have a complex that we need to get over.
So, please decry the pictures. Let people know that it is offensive to use such gestures, but please don't going around saying it is proof of racism against Asians in America. There is much more we could point to to prove that point. (I would argue that the fact that this hasn't gotten the mainstream news coverage the "Barack the Magic Negro" song, or Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" comment, received is a form of racism, but the pictures themselves aren't.) This is simply ignorant and insensitive people being caught in a compromising position.
Down syndrome, Find the answer
As the father of a little girl, I experienced how excited I am when my baby is healthy. During the time of pregnancy, most couples have a long as well as a wonderful expectation. They cannot wait to see their child. But the wonderful expectation will turn into misery when a couple knows their child is not healthy, especially if the child has Down syndrome. Living in a poor country that does not have the technology to diagnose Down syndrome during pregnancy, the couple just discovers their child has Down syndrome after the child is born, thus, they have to take care of that child. However, living in technologically advanced country such as the United States, the parents know whether their child is healthy or not during the time of pregnancy.
As a M.Div student who will become a pastor, I really don’t have the answer yet if a couple came to me, as a spiritual leader and asked for advice whether to keep the baby or not after the mother took a karyotype test (Amniocentesis) and know surely that their child has Down syndrome, and the doctor prefer to take the baby out. There are two options:
First, if I had told them to take the baby out, I would have become the person who has kept the law (commandments) but encouraged people to violate the law.
Second, if I tell them to keep the baby, I would feel very sorry every time I saw them in the church. The child can not play or study in the Sunday school like other children. The parents surely would have a difficult time and challenge to raise that child. The case is a little easier if they are living in a country such as the United States, where there is good medical cares and social services. But the case will more difficult if they are living in a country that does not have good medical cares and social services, such as Vietnam.
Some spiritual people may say we pray and God will heal that child. I believe God still does miracles today. But what if God does not heal that child?
The case will become more complicated if it happens to me. I also face two options:
First, if I had taken the baby out, I would have become the person who has kept the law (commandments) but violated the law.
Second, if I keep the baby, I will have a hard time to serve the Vietnamese people who have been influenced by Buddhism about “Cause and effect.” It means that either I or my child has done something bad in the life before, now I and mine have to reap the bad things in this life. Even though I know that is not right. In the Bible, Jesus also encountered that question, in John 9:1-3, “As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” In that case, God’s works might be revealed in him by opening his eyes. But in my situation, how can God’s works be revealed in me and Down syndrome child?
The Bible states, “Sons are indeed a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.” (Psalms 127:3). Having a Down syndrome child is a reward for me when I serve God? I also have a hard time to encourage people to serve God.
I hope by your responses, I will find an answer.
As a M.Div student who will become a pastor, I really don’t have the answer yet if a couple came to me, as a spiritual leader and asked for advice whether to keep the baby or not after the mother took a karyotype test (Amniocentesis) and know surely that their child has Down syndrome, and the doctor prefer to take the baby out. There are two options:
First, if I had told them to take the baby out, I would have become the person who has kept the law (commandments) but encouraged people to violate the law.
Second, if I tell them to keep the baby, I would feel very sorry every time I saw them in the church. The child can not play or study in the Sunday school like other children. The parents surely would have a difficult time and challenge to raise that child. The case is a little easier if they are living in a country such as the United States, where there is good medical cares and social services. But the case will more difficult if they are living in a country that does not have good medical cares and social services, such as Vietnam.
Some spiritual people may say we pray and God will heal that child. I believe God still does miracles today. But what if God does not heal that child?
The case will become more complicated if it happens to me. I also face two options:
First, if I had taken the baby out, I would have become the person who has kept the law (commandments) but violated the law.
Second, if I keep the baby, I will have a hard time to serve the Vietnamese people who have been influenced by Buddhism about “Cause and effect.” It means that either I or my child has done something bad in the life before, now I and mine have to reap the bad things in this life. Even though I know that is not right. In the Bible, Jesus also encountered that question, in John 9:1-3, “As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” In that case, God’s works might be revealed in him by opening his eyes. But in my situation, how can God’s works be revealed in me and Down syndrome child?
The Bible states, “Sons are indeed a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.” (Psalms 127:3). Having a Down syndrome child is a reward for me when I serve God? I also have a hard time to encourage people to serve God.
I hope by your responses, I will find an answer.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Drug cartel-fueled violence along the U.S./Mexico border has renewed the debate over legalizing marijuana and other recreational drugs. Linda Valdez, editorial columnist, recently called for legalizing marijuana, citing it as a primary profit- maker for drug cartels. She argues that consumers enjoy the intoxicating effects of marijuana in the same manner that they enjoy alcohol, and that potential addiction is something that users believe they control. As with past efforts such as Prohibition, she judges this war unwinnable. Legalization and taxation, she writes, will reduce the influence of organized crime and help to pay for the social costs of addiction (Arizona Republic, March 15, 2009). Robert Robb, another editorialist, affirmed her stance on the grounds of protecting the liberty of the individual from specious definitions of criminal conduct. He argues that recreational drug use “should be treated as a matter of personal responsibility and personal and public health.” (Arizona Republic, March 19, 2009).
An opposing opinion piece by John Walters of the Hudson Institute noted a gradual drop in the numbers of young users of illegal drugs in the U.S., citing 900,000 fewer now than in 2001. He credits this to the success of current education, treatment and workplace testing programs and to the diversionary practices of the criminal justice system, as well as policies aimed at reducing supply. He notes, however, that legalization of alcohol has not eradicated addiction, citing alcoholism rates of approximately 10% among the 100 million Americans who drink at least monthly (Arizona Republic, March 19, 2009).
In February, three former presidents of Latin American countries, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia called the war on drugs a failure despite years of enforcement efforts and billions of dollars in U.S. aid. They cite 5,000 violent deaths related to narcotics within the past year in Mexico alone (Wall St. Journal, February 23, 2009).
Since alcohol is a recreational drug often utilized to illustrate the benefits of legalization, I thought I’d check some statistics on its use and abuse in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control lists the number of alcohol-induced deaths for 2005, excluding homicides and accidents, at 21,634. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm.) Mothers Against Drunk Driving reports that every 40 minutes on average, a drunk driver kills someone and estimates that 12,998 people died in crashes related to driving drunk in 2007. (This is the good news – deaths down from 13,491 in 2006.) The cost of crashes related to alcohol in 2000 was approximately $114.3 billion, and 63% of this was borne by the public rather than the driver who was drinking. (Source: http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Statistics.aspx.)
All of this makes me wonder about rights and obligations, freedom of choice and taxation. I’m accustomed to liberties grounded in the Constitution, and to viewing issues in terms of personal freedom. But as Amesbury and Newlands point out, “…The notion of rights is meaningless if a person’s rights do not make some sort of corresponding demand on the behavior of others;” and rights can be immunities as well as liberties (Faith and Human Rights, p. 25). So… Does a citizen’s right to recreational drug use (including legal drugs) obligate other citizens to pay for treatment and rehabilitation if addiction takes over? (If I’m addicted and need help, shouldn’t I expect that assistance just as an effort to benefit the social fabric, if not to care for me personally?) Can the social and personal costs of abuse and addiction be adequately addressed by treatment efforts in a therapeutic field yielding mixed results and high rates of recidivism? Is the government’s need for funds to pay for regulation, treatment, education, etc., sufficient justification for legalization and taxation of commonly used illegal drugs? Do rights to be free of drug-related violence, here and abroad, support a policy of legalization or a policy of interdiction? …What do you think?
An opposing opinion piece by John Walters of the Hudson Institute noted a gradual drop in the numbers of young users of illegal drugs in the U.S., citing 900,000 fewer now than in 2001. He credits this to the success of current education, treatment and workplace testing programs and to the diversionary practices of the criminal justice system, as well as policies aimed at reducing supply. He notes, however, that legalization of alcohol has not eradicated addiction, citing alcoholism rates of approximately 10% among the 100 million Americans who drink at least monthly (Arizona Republic, March 19, 2009).
In February, three former presidents of Latin American countries, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia called the war on drugs a failure despite years of enforcement efforts and billions of dollars in U.S. aid. They cite 5,000 violent deaths related to narcotics within the past year in Mexico alone (Wall St. Journal, February 23, 2009).
Since alcohol is a recreational drug often utilized to illustrate the benefits of legalization, I thought I’d check some statistics on its use and abuse in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control lists the number of alcohol-induced deaths for 2005, excluding homicides and accidents, at 21,634. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm.) Mothers Against Drunk Driving reports that every 40 minutes on average, a drunk driver kills someone and estimates that 12,998 people died in crashes related to driving drunk in 2007. (This is the good news – deaths down from 13,491 in 2006.) The cost of crashes related to alcohol in 2000 was approximately $114.3 billion, and 63% of this was borne by the public rather than the driver who was drinking. (Source: http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Statistics.aspx.)
All of this makes me wonder about rights and obligations, freedom of choice and taxation. I’m accustomed to liberties grounded in the Constitution, and to viewing issues in terms of personal freedom. But as Amesbury and Newlands point out, “…The notion of rights is meaningless if a person’s rights do not make some sort of corresponding demand on the behavior of others;” and rights can be immunities as well as liberties (Faith and Human Rights, p. 25). So… Does a citizen’s right to recreational drug use (including legal drugs) obligate other citizens to pay for treatment and rehabilitation if addiction takes over? (If I’m addicted and need help, shouldn’t I expect that assistance just as an effort to benefit the social fabric, if not to care for me personally?) Can the social and personal costs of abuse and addiction be adequately addressed by treatment efforts in a therapeutic field yielding mixed results and high rates of recidivism? Is the government’s need for funds to pay for regulation, treatment, education, etc., sufficient justification for legalization and taxation of commonly used illegal drugs? Do rights to be free of drug-related violence, here and abroad, support a policy of legalization or a policy of interdiction? …What do you think?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Stem Cell Research
On March 9, 2009, recently inaugurated president Barack Obama followed through with one of his many campaign promises aimed at securing the left leaning voter of America and lifted former presidents Bush’s ban on federal money being used for human embryonic stem cell research (James). This issue is often misrepresented by those who favor unfettered use of stem cells for research. Proponents of embryonic stem cell research represent such research as (1) sure to lead to cures for everything from Parkinson’s to paralyses, (2) dependent upon access to embryonic stem cells, and (3) only possible with federal funding. While it is true that the previous prohibition on using fetal stem cells was implemented in August 2001 by then president Bush, it is also true that the prohibition allowed stem cell research on existing lines, as well as research using fetal stem cells if conducted without federal money. In essence, the prohibition only banned the use of those stem cells that would have come from embryos created for the sole purpose of being destroyed to have their stem cells harvested, and even then, only when federal money was involved.
The question of whether human eggs should be fertilized for the sole purpose of extinguishing the life and harvesting stem cells for research is closely tied to abortion in that such conduct fails to properly respect human life. The argument that creating and then destroying human embryos is ethical because it may save a life fails to recognize that the embryo itself is a life with all the potential of the very person researchers are hoping to save. The sacrifice of this single life, even to potentially save many, reeks of a utilitarianism argument that I frankly do not believe holds much water. Suppose we had two people with type A blood who desperately needed blood transfusions of about 3 pints each, and without such a transfusion each would die. The only available blood source is a young man who is type A. Knowing that he could provide 3 pints to each patient, but the loss of more than 4 pints would probably result in his death, I would guess most would not suggest that he be sacrificed to save the two others. In the case of human embryonic stem cell research, I must take the same position and argue that no amount of potential good justifies the creation and destruction of human life.
Notwithstanding the change in administrations, obstacles remain to the unfettered use of even existing stem cell lines harvested from human embryos. The so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment to the omnibus spending bill signed by president Obama on March 11, 2009, contains provisions that "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death," are prohibited from using federal dollars. One might question how such a provision could be let into a spending bill just three days after the president seemingly lifted such a ban. With respect to the recent stimulus bill there were a lot of critics that argued Congress was derelict in its passage because they did not have enough time to even read the over 1,000 pages before they voted for it. Maybe this is another case of the majority party not reading a bill before they vote for, or sign it. Nevertheless, liberals are now crying foul and moving to repeal the amendment (FoxNews).
Despite some remaining obstacles, and last ditch efforts by those opposed to the creation of human lives in order to destroy them in hopes of curing disease, such use will soon be commonplace on the taxpayer’s dollar. Even if this year’s omnibus bill is not amended, one can be sure that the democrats will not allow this mistake to slip through again. Just like abortion, the creation of human embryonic stem cells for research chips away at the long held human reverence for life and what makes us unique in creation. Scientists choose to use semantics and sophistry to convince others that the creation of human life is in reality only a creation of cells having neither human potential nor characteristics any different than sloughed off skin cells.
Fox News. Obamas Approval of Stem Cell Research Needs Congressional Action. 14 March 2009. Fox News. 15 March 2009
James, Frank. Obama OKs Embryonic Stem Cell Research. 9 March 2009. LA Times. 15 March 2009. <
The question of whether human eggs should be fertilized for the sole purpose of extinguishing the life and harvesting stem cells for research is closely tied to abortion in that such conduct fails to properly respect human life. The argument that creating and then destroying human embryos is ethical because it may save a life fails to recognize that the embryo itself is a life with all the potential of the very person researchers are hoping to save. The sacrifice of this single life, even to potentially save many, reeks of a utilitarianism argument that I frankly do not believe holds much water. Suppose we had two people with type A blood who desperately needed blood transfusions of about 3 pints each, and without such a transfusion each would die. The only available blood source is a young man who is type A. Knowing that he could provide 3 pints to each patient, but the loss of more than 4 pints would probably result in his death, I would guess most would not suggest that he be sacrificed to save the two others. In the case of human embryonic stem cell research, I must take the same position and argue that no amount of potential good justifies the creation and destruction of human life.
Notwithstanding the change in administrations, obstacles remain to the unfettered use of even existing stem cell lines harvested from human embryos. The so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment to the omnibus spending bill signed by president Obama on March 11, 2009, contains provisions that "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death," are prohibited from using federal dollars. One might question how such a provision could be let into a spending bill just three days after the president seemingly lifted such a ban. With respect to the recent stimulus bill there were a lot of critics that argued Congress was derelict in its passage because they did not have enough time to even read the over 1,000 pages before they voted for it. Maybe this is another case of the majority party not reading a bill before they vote for, or sign it. Nevertheless, liberals are now crying foul and moving to repeal the amendment (FoxNews).
Despite some remaining obstacles, and last ditch efforts by those opposed to the creation of human lives in order to destroy them in hopes of curing disease, such use will soon be commonplace on the taxpayer’s dollar. Even if this year’s omnibus bill is not amended, one can be sure that the democrats will not allow this mistake to slip through again. Just like abortion, the creation of human embryonic stem cells for research chips away at the long held human reverence for life and what makes us unique in creation. Scientists choose to use semantics and sophistry to convince others that the creation of human life is in reality only a creation of cells having neither human potential nor characteristics any different than sloughed off skin cells.
Fox News. Obamas Approval of Stem Cell Research Needs Congressional Action. 14 March 2009. Fox News. 15 March 2009
James, Frank. Obama OKs Embryonic Stem Cell Research. 9 March 2009. LA Times. 15 March 2009. <
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Economic sanctions, who is right?
A couple of years ago, my friend Susan and I spent three weeks in Burma (now Myanmar). Before we went, we discovered that the US Government has sanctions against the repressive Burmese government and that we would not be able to bring anything back from our trip. At best, any items that we purchased would be confiscated. At worst, we would be fined or even jailed.
During the trip, we really struggled with this injunction. We saw first-hand how the sanctions hurt the people at the lowest levels of the economy—the craftspeople, the tribal artisans, and the poor selling trinkets on the street. We questioned our government’s tactics which give the Burmese despots an easy target to blame for their country’s economic and social woes.
Without a doubt, the Burmese military government is frightening. We saw that when the hurricane hit there a couple of years ago and the government wouldn’t let foreign relief workers into the country. Yet, everywhere we went, people at the lower levels spoke to us about how evil and greedy their leaders are. I was surprised at their willingness to talk because I have aided Burmese political asylees in Phoenix who had to flee for their very lives for speaking out and who can never go home again or even contact their families in Burma for fear of endangering them.
Over and over Susan and I talked about which is the greater evil—breaking our government’s laws by smuggling into the US a few small souvenirs or, not sharing our abundance with the poor that need it so badly. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” These words echoed in my mind all during the trip.
Susan is a lawyer. She opted for adhering to the law. I am a seminary student. I bought a couple of small things and smuggled them into the US. As an artist, I felt I had to give some support for local crafts people.
The irony of it all was that the customs agents in LA, who are notorious for being tough, didn’t even ask questions, didn’t search our luggage, and seemed bored with it all. We wondered what happened to the Americans we saw in Yangon (formerly Rangoon) who were buying lots of stuff. Probably they sailed through customs as we did.
What would you have done? Whose ethical position is right? Who is hurt most by our federal sanctions? Couldn’t there be a better way? One of the things we talked about in our first ethics class was how important it was to stay at the table and continue to talk even when we thought the other side was evil. Why is it so hard for our government to do that? Why are we always right and the other side always wrong. I have pictures of craftspeople working at sandalwood carving, basket making, and creating pottery. I wonder if they have had money for food today.
During the trip, we really struggled with this injunction. We saw first-hand how the sanctions hurt the people at the lowest levels of the economy—the craftspeople, the tribal artisans, and the poor selling trinkets on the street. We questioned our government’s tactics which give the Burmese despots an easy target to blame for their country’s economic and social woes.
Without a doubt, the Burmese military government is frightening. We saw that when the hurricane hit there a couple of years ago and the government wouldn’t let foreign relief workers into the country. Yet, everywhere we went, people at the lower levels spoke to us about how evil and greedy their leaders are. I was surprised at their willingness to talk because I have aided Burmese political asylees in Phoenix who had to flee for their very lives for speaking out and who can never go home again or even contact their families in Burma for fear of endangering them.
Over and over Susan and I talked about which is the greater evil—breaking our government’s laws by smuggling into the US a few small souvenirs or, not sharing our abundance with the poor that need it so badly. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” These words echoed in my mind all during the trip.
Susan is a lawyer. She opted for adhering to the law. I am a seminary student. I bought a couple of small things and smuggled them into the US. As an artist, I felt I had to give some support for local crafts people.
The irony of it all was that the customs agents in LA, who are notorious for being tough, didn’t even ask questions, didn’t search our luggage, and seemed bored with it all. We wondered what happened to the Americans we saw in Yangon (formerly Rangoon) who were buying lots of stuff. Probably they sailed through customs as we did.
What would you have done? Whose ethical position is right? Who is hurt most by our federal sanctions? Couldn’t there be a better way? One of the things we talked about in our first ethics class was how important it was to stay at the table and continue to talk even when we thought the other side was evil. Why is it so hard for our government to do that? Why are we always right and the other side always wrong. I have pictures of craftspeople working at sandalwood carving, basket making, and creating pottery. I wonder if they have had money for food today.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Texting?
Jennifer Lim
I think texting is one of the best conveniences that technology has brought us. But in seeing an article on msnbc.com, I was completely mortified by what human beings can make of such great things. An article on msnbc.com, “Teen ‘sexting’: Youthful prank or sex crime?” explains the problem of “Sexting,” which is the use of cell phones by kids to share “racy photos.” The article’s subtitle is, “With child porn charges being leveled, some say laws are behind the times.” According to the article, a 15 year old girl is facing pornography charges for sending nude photos of herself to other kids. A 19 year old Florida man got thrown out of college and registered as a sex offender for 25 years for sending like pictures of his girlfriend to other teenagers. One person says, “Kids will be kids, but that doesn’t make them criminals. This problem needs to be solved as a social problem, not a criminal problem.” How common is this “sexting”? The article says that “20 percent of kids under the age of 17 have admitted that they received revealing photos of other kids.”
In looking further into the article, things get more serious when Jesse Logan is mentioned. The article continues, although kids may not think there is any harm in sending pictures like these to boyfriends and girlfriends, there was a case about Jesse Logan, an 18 year old girl who killed herself after her ex-boyfriend sent nude pictures of her to other girls in her school. The girls harassed Jesse for months and the school officials did not take action to stop the harassment. She even told her story to the local television station, and when the harassment continued, she hanged herself last July.
Law enforcement is struggling with the question of whether these acts should be charged of child pornography. Another interesting point was that adults sharing this type of photos is not a crime and yet when it comes to kids, child porn laws are applied.
In reading this article, every aspect of it disturbed me. From the fact that a word such as ‘sexting’ had to be invented, or the fact that we live in such a world where teenagers think there is “no harm” in such acts, and also the fact that teenagers are being charged with such harsh sentences for acts adults are not punished for. This article also reminded me of the Vanessa Hudgens incident that happened not too long ago. A Disney star who’s a role model to many young girls all over the world displayed such behavior, and honestly, what can we expect of our teens today when the world, run by adults, is bombarding them through media, music, and advertisements that it’s all about money and sex? As someone who served in the high school ministry for couple years, this really is a prominent issue, along with the text bullying and even myspace bullying that I’ve seen in our own ministry.
This article came to mind when reading chapter 15 of Wolterstorff’s book, asking if a secular grounding of human rights is possible. Kant’s proposal was that “humanity is the capacity to set ends through reason” (326), and that it is this capacity for rational action that gives humans worth. However, every so often, as in the article above, it just seems to me that humanity, despite their “capacity to reason,” at times performs behaviors that throw out all dignity out the window. Are human rights owed to humanity just for having the mere “capacity,” no matter their conduct? According to Allen Wood, this is the case, “the worst rational being has the same dignity or absolute worth as the best rational being.” However, just as Wolterstorff points out the problem in this statement, I believe that a secular grounding of human rights is not possible. Human beings may be capable of wonderful and beautiful things but looking alongside at the absurdities of human conduct, I’m left to think that humanity deserves human rights and dignity, not due to our mere “capacity to reason,” but because no matter what we do, or how we act, God sees worth in us.
Article can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29613192/
I think texting is one of the best conveniences that technology has brought us. But in seeing an article on msnbc.com, I was completely mortified by what human beings can make of such great things. An article on msnbc.com, “Teen ‘sexting’: Youthful prank or sex crime?” explains the problem of “Sexting,” which is the use of cell phones by kids to share “racy photos.” The article’s subtitle is, “With child porn charges being leveled, some say laws are behind the times.” According to the article, a 15 year old girl is facing pornography charges for sending nude photos of herself to other kids. A 19 year old Florida man got thrown out of college and registered as a sex offender for 25 years for sending like pictures of his girlfriend to other teenagers. One person says, “Kids will be kids, but that doesn’t make them criminals. This problem needs to be solved as a social problem, not a criminal problem.” How common is this “sexting”? The article says that “20 percent of kids under the age of 17 have admitted that they received revealing photos of other kids.”
In looking further into the article, things get more serious when Jesse Logan is mentioned. The article continues, although kids may not think there is any harm in sending pictures like these to boyfriends and girlfriends, there was a case about Jesse Logan, an 18 year old girl who killed herself after her ex-boyfriend sent nude pictures of her to other girls in her school. The girls harassed Jesse for months and the school officials did not take action to stop the harassment. She even told her story to the local television station, and when the harassment continued, she hanged herself last July.
Law enforcement is struggling with the question of whether these acts should be charged of child pornography. Another interesting point was that adults sharing this type of photos is not a crime and yet when it comes to kids, child porn laws are applied.
In reading this article, every aspect of it disturbed me. From the fact that a word such as ‘sexting’ had to be invented, or the fact that we live in such a world where teenagers think there is “no harm” in such acts, and also the fact that teenagers are being charged with such harsh sentences for acts adults are not punished for. This article also reminded me of the Vanessa Hudgens incident that happened not too long ago. A Disney star who’s a role model to many young girls all over the world displayed such behavior, and honestly, what can we expect of our teens today when the world, run by adults, is bombarding them through media, music, and advertisements that it’s all about money and sex? As someone who served in the high school ministry for couple years, this really is a prominent issue, along with the text bullying and even myspace bullying that I’ve seen in our own ministry.
This article came to mind when reading chapter 15 of Wolterstorff’s book, asking if a secular grounding of human rights is possible. Kant’s proposal was that “humanity is the capacity to set ends through reason” (326), and that it is this capacity for rational action that gives humans worth. However, every so often, as in the article above, it just seems to me that humanity, despite their “capacity to reason,” at times performs behaviors that throw out all dignity out the window. Are human rights owed to humanity just for having the mere “capacity,” no matter their conduct? According to Allen Wood, this is the case, “the worst rational being has the same dignity or absolute worth as the best rational being.” However, just as Wolterstorff points out the problem in this statement, I believe that a secular grounding of human rights is not possible. Human beings may be capable of wonderful and beautiful things but looking alongside at the absurdities of human conduct, I’m left to think that humanity deserves human rights and dignity, not due to our mere “capacity to reason,” but because no matter what we do, or how we act, God sees worth in us.
Article can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29613192/
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Why Is Bernard Madoff Not Locked Up?
It is stunning to me that Bernard Madoff has been allowed to continue to live in his multi-million dollar Manhattan penthouse apartment instead of being housed in a jail cell. It has been over two months since he was picked up for what is “believed to be the largest financial fraud in history.” (CBS News) How is it that someone can swindle (read that steal) billions of dollars from people and not go to jail? Granted, he is under “house arrest,” but that allows him to stay in his lavish surroundings. Any regular person – you or I – would have been not only in jail, but “under the jail,” as my mother used to say.
I guess that technically I should say that he “allegedly” stole billions since he is accused and has not been convicted. Yet there seem to be a lot of people who have documents bearing the name of his Wall Street investment company that they thought entitled them to funds that just do not exist because he never invested any of their money. There is no evidence that he ever bought a single stock or bond. He never made a single trade (at least not since 1993, according to Harry Markopolos, the man who figured out Madoff’s scheme), even though he took money -- 50 billion dollars in money – from his “investors.” That would make every statement that he sent to each of his investors a fabrication, a lie. And no one seems to know where all of that money is now.
And while he sits in that Madison Avenue penthouse? Hundreds of people who trusted him have had their lives turned upside down. One woman waiting outside of a bankruptcy court told reporters, “I’ve lost everything. I’m now on food stamps and may have to move into my car.” Another told of having to move her elderly mother into a Medicaid-funded assisted living facility, as she packed up their apartment to move in with a friend, “while this man sits in his penthouse and smirks.”
The people he stole from run the gamut from the extremely wealthy of New York and Palm Beach and Hollywood celebrities to people who were in on the investments by virtue of their being part of a retirement program, e.g., the Carpenters’ Pension Fund of Syracuse, New York. (CBS News)
According to a segment on the CBS news show, “60 Minutes,” Madoff’s modus operandi was an “affinity scam,” described by Harry Markopolos as an operation where the investor preys on groups similar to oneself. Madoff is Jewish, so one group on which he ran his scam was Jewish investors. One such investor was Elie Wiesel. Wiesel is an author, political activist, and Holocaust survivor. In 1986 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “powerful message of peace, atonement and human dignity.” What does this man of peace have to say about Bernard Madoff? He told CNN news that Madoff is “[o]ne of the greatest scoundrels, thieves, liars and criminals.” Wiesel cited the devastation to foundations, hospitals, and educational institutions (to name a few) caused by Madoff.
Wiesel’s foundation, which takes care of over 1,000 Ethiopian children in Israel, lost over 15 million dollars and will be unable to add the center for which they had plans in Jerusalem. Asked if he could forgive Madoff for what he has done, Wiesel replied, “No.” He explained that Madoff would need to beg forgiveness, and he knows that Madoff would not ever do that.
Wiesel’s punishment for Madoff is well thought-out, I believe. Appropriate to the crime, as it were. His plan would be for Madoff “to be in a solitary cell with a screen, and on that screen, for at least five years of his life, every day and every night there should be pictures of his victims, one after the other, always saying, “Look, look what you have done to this poor lady; look what you have done to this child; look what you have done.” And that, of course, would be a minimum punishment. Wiesel is quoted in news stories as saying, “It shows, again, a human being is capable of both very great, good things and very horrible things.”
As of today, Madoff is fighting to keep $62 million in bonds and cash that he says is “not related to the fraud charges against him,” he continues to live in that 7-million dollar Manhattan penthouse, although he is possibly on the verge of making a plea deal.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Legal Prostitution
Legalizing Prostitution
As I was traveling through Arizona a couple of weeks ago I ran across the February 2009 issue of Arizona Highways. In it was an article by Sally Beford entitled “Territorial Trollops.” In the story Sally made the statement that these “Ladies of the evening played a major role settling the West.” You can look it up and read the whole article, but the message it conveys is these “soiled doves” and “shady ladies” were instrumental in western expansion. Their “profession” contributed to economics and stability, “keeping a lid on the powder keg” atmosphere and environment of an 1800’s mining town. They were the first ambassadors of culture, bringing fine pianos and “fancy furnishings” to the towns they settled in. Sounds romantic doesn’t it?
Here is the unfortunate turn in the unfolding story. If a mining town went under the shady ladies would just pack up and go to another boom town. If the towns became stable the women would eventually be moved to the “tenderloin” or “red light” district. Finally laws against prostitution were enacted and the profession went underground.
Fast forward to 2008-2009. I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. It is in this present time period that we have noticed the news articles citing our mayor extolling the possibilities of legalizing prostitution in Clark county and Las Vegas. One of the reasons he gives is the taxation will help support our educational system that is undergoing massive funding cuts in these troubled economic times.
A quick side note. One only need to travel 50 miles to the west to enter Pahrump in Nye county were prostitution is legal. More on this later in the blog.
An article in the February 12th Las Vegas Sun reports on the Legislature will pass on taxing prostitution this year but will almost assuredly have it on a future session. Then on the front page of the February 15th Las Vegas Review-Journal we have an article complete with full colored pictures of the 25 most hounded prostitutes that work the strip. The article merely reported on the revolving door policy of “catch and release” of these women and in the process giving another excuse to debase the so called “undesirables” of our society. Spokes person for the police said, “If they get the message that Las Vegas is not going to ignore their subsequent arrests, then maybe they will take their lifestyle to a different city.” Sound familiar?
Gary Peck of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada responded by saying, “It would be troubling if this list was being used as a substitute for sound police judgment.” The mayor wondered if the pimps should really be the ones to go after because they are the real “exploiters” of these women?
I began questioning everyone I could on their position on legalizing prostitution. Of all the people I interviewed only one was against legalization and they admitted that if a person had a debilitating illness that did not curtail their libido and had no prospects of marriage or a girlfriend it would be appropriate for them to visit legal prostitutes. In fact just last year the paper ran an article on a house of prostitution where some of the working ladies echoed that this was definitely part of their clients.
A female friend of mine who works for the United Methodist Global Board of Health and just returned from Tanzania doing AIDS education, told me that where prostitution was legal there was very little concern for AIDS or other STD’s because of the close screening and health care. Where prostitution was not legal, as in some of the townships she had recently been to, AIDS was epidemic.
So what I am putting forth here is possibly prostitution should be legalized and taxation should go to educational funds for the prostitutes to get vocational training. This could also include mandatory psychological evaluations and counseling to help in the rehabilitation of the many cultural and social situations (poverty, abuse, slavery) that brought them to prostitution in the first place.
My main concern and one that was echoed by just about everyone was the dark underbelly of human sex slave trafficking which is a worldwide cancer. If prostitution is legal will it help to eradicate this affront to human dignity or will it just open a legal opportunity for this kind of action??
I watched the HBO series “Cathouse” about the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, a legal house of prostitution in Nye County Nevada, to see what it might reveal. On the surface there were the prostitutes seemingly having the party of a lifetime. Professional lawyers, truckers and fathers bringing their sons and all were just having a wonderful time. But in the scenes that showed the owner, a man, interacting with the women it appeared to be more a form of slavery. If you were to believe what is presented on the show, these women only leave the premises to have their weekly health checkup and to go on fabulous shopping sprees, with the owner, to buy feathered boas!
No easy answers here.
As I was traveling through Arizona a couple of weeks ago I ran across the February 2009 issue of Arizona Highways. In it was an article by Sally Beford entitled “Territorial Trollops.” In the story Sally made the statement that these “Ladies of the evening played a major role settling the West.” You can look it up and read the whole article, but the message it conveys is these “soiled doves” and “shady ladies” were instrumental in western expansion. Their “profession” contributed to economics and stability, “keeping a lid on the powder keg” atmosphere and environment of an 1800’s mining town. They were the first ambassadors of culture, bringing fine pianos and “fancy furnishings” to the towns they settled in. Sounds romantic doesn’t it?
Here is the unfortunate turn in the unfolding story. If a mining town went under the shady ladies would just pack up and go to another boom town. If the towns became stable the women would eventually be moved to the “tenderloin” or “red light” district. Finally laws against prostitution were enacted and the profession went underground.
Fast forward to 2008-2009. I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. It is in this present time period that we have noticed the news articles citing our mayor extolling the possibilities of legalizing prostitution in Clark county and Las Vegas. One of the reasons he gives is the taxation will help support our educational system that is undergoing massive funding cuts in these troubled economic times.
A quick side note. One only need to travel 50 miles to the west to enter Pahrump in Nye county were prostitution is legal. More on this later in the blog.
An article in the February 12th Las Vegas Sun reports on the Legislature will pass on taxing prostitution this year but will almost assuredly have it on a future session. Then on the front page of the February 15th Las Vegas Review-Journal we have an article complete with full colored pictures of the 25 most hounded prostitutes that work the strip. The article merely reported on the revolving door policy of “catch and release” of these women and in the process giving another excuse to debase the so called “undesirables” of our society. Spokes person for the police said, “If they get the message that Las Vegas is not going to ignore their subsequent arrests, then maybe they will take their lifestyle to a different city.” Sound familiar?
Gary Peck of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada responded by saying, “It would be troubling if this list was being used as a substitute for sound police judgment.” The mayor wondered if the pimps should really be the ones to go after because they are the real “exploiters” of these women?
I began questioning everyone I could on their position on legalizing prostitution. Of all the people I interviewed only one was against legalization and they admitted that if a person had a debilitating illness that did not curtail their libido and had no prospects of marriage or a girlfriend it would be appropriate for them to visit legal prostitutes. In fact just last year the paper ran an article on a house of prostitution where some of the working ladies echoed that this was definitely part of their clients.
A female friend of mine who works for the United Methodist Global Board of Health and just returned from Tanzania doing AIDS education, told me that where prostitution was legal there was very little concern for AIDS or other STD’s because of the close screening and health care. Where prostitution was not legal, as in some of the townships she had recently been to, AIDS was epidemic.
So what I am putting forth here is possibly prostitution should be legalized and taxation should go to educational funds for the prostitutes to get vocational training. This could also include mandatory psychological evaluations and counseling to help in the rehabilitation of the many cultural and social situations (poverty, abuse, slavery) that brought them to prostitution in the first place.
My main concern and one that was echoed by just about everyone was the dark underbelly of human sex slave trafficking which is a worldwide cancer. If prostitution is legal will it help to eradicate this affront to human dignity or will it just open a legal opportunity for this kind of action??
I watched the HBO series “Cathouse” about the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, a legal house of prostitution in Nye County Nevada, to see what it might reveal. On the surface there were the prostitutes seemingly having the party of a lifetime. Professional lawyers, truckers and fathers bringing their sons and all were just having a wonderful time. But in the scenes that showed the owner, a man, interacting with the women it appeared to be more a form of slavery. If you were to believe what is presented on the show, these women only leave the premises to have their weekly health checkup and to go on fabulous shopping sprees, with the owner, to buy feathered boas!
No easy answers here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
