Digital piracy. This may not seem like an ethical gray area to some, but for many it has become a sticky quagmire of rights, freedoms, and expectations. Gone are the days of recording mix tapes from the radio on a Saturday afternoon or doing a wavy-line copy from VCR to VCR of rented videos. Today, your grandmother probably has a computer with more processing power than was required to send someone to the moon and bring them back safely; making a perfect copy of a CD or even a DVD is a trivial operation. Just as the use of digital video recorders in the home has become mainstream and given people the ability to record television shows and movies for convenient consumption, websites like hulu.com, youtube.com, and tvrss.net threaten to make the very idea of recording your own content an anachronism. Limited not only to media such as music and video, digital piracy of software is enough of an issue that companies are willing to run the risk of alienating their own customers to prevent copies of games or operating systems from being distributed without their approval. Microsoft introduced its 'Genuine Advantage' tool which forced users to validate that they were using a legitimate copy of Windows before installing certain updates in 2005, but the sheer number of computers running pirated copies of Windows XP worldwide forced them to allow download of critical security updates even to known pirated copies for the general safety and security of the worldwide network (Interestingly enough, a google search for 'Windows Genuine Advantage' returns as many, if not more, hits on how to disable or crack it than Microsoft's own site). Sony is infamous for their XCP 'rootkit' technology which amounted to installing special software on a customer's computer, without their knowledge, in order to prevent piracy when a DVD or CD was inserted. Unfortunately this 'rootkit' itself turned out to contain flaws which caused major instability and even allowed malicious third parties to take control of affected computers. Herein lies the ethical dilemma, where does a company's right to protect their own interests supersede the individual's right to privacy and personal freedom?
Digital piracy has long been an issue among the technical elite but we are now at a point in history when it has become so simple to make flawless copies and distribute them that anyone can become a digital pirate. For many, the issue is no longer IF they can copy and share but rather to what extent WILL they copy and share. Some companies have embraced this new reality and have made efforts to make it simple and inexpensive enough to 'do the right thing' (pay for copies) that many people comply and pay for what could otherwise be had for free with almost no effort. Apple is a fantastic example of a company that has embraced this philosophy, placing no restrictions on the installation or copying of their operating system but selling family-sized licensing packs which allows people to pay a small markup in order to perform multiple, legitimate installations. Broadcast networks have also realized that people can find television shows on the internet and watch them for free with almost no technical know-how and have attempted to counter this by creating a better product instead of cracking down on what they consider illegal viewing. The inevitable arms race between those that want the content on their own terms and the companies who want to control distribution continues to rage on, but it has been pushed below the radar for most people simply because the 'right' avenue is simple enough and cheap enough to use. How is a consumer supposed to navigate these ethical waters when the border between what is possible and what is right is not only blurred but erased with the click of a button? In the United States, the DMCA makes it illegal to make digital copies of anything that a company has TRIED to protect with encryption, regardless of how good a job they have done. What difference does this make to an otherwise law-abiding American who would never dream of cracking encryption (much less have any idea how to)? The simple act of copying a 'Dora the Explorer' DVD to my computer so my children can watch it without scratching, breaking, or peanut-butter-staining the disk makes me a criminal. The encryption that protects DVD videos is so simple to circumvent that it can be done with 7 lines of computer code. Can it really be illegal to distribute 'encryption breaking software' that can be printed on the back of a t-shirt? (btw, here is the elegant DeCss algorithm in 7 lines of Perl).
Does this make sense? Should ordinary people be forced into becoming 'criminals' in order to do what seems natural and normal? Are you a 'pirate' if you copy a CD to your computer and then give the disk to a friend? Many record companies would argue that the answer to this question is a resounding 'Yes', even going so far as to argue that it is illegal to buy 'second hand' or used compact disc. Does it make sense to frustrate consumers who have purchased a video game that is encumbered with anti-piracy software, driving them to download 'cracked' versions from shady websites(I'll refrain from putting a link here ) simply to avoid the hassle of using something they legitimately purchased? The issue of 'Fair Use' has been around for quite some time, but how many people are able to determine whether a button click or even a photocopy is within the bounds of the law, much less ethically correct?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Police Brutality on New Years Day
This post is from JASON TAYLOR:
It was 2 a.m. on New Years day 2009, when 22 year old Oscar Grant (African American), was shot in the back and killed by Bay Area Rapid Transit Police. At the time Grant was shot, he was unarmed, restrained, and handcuffed. Grant and several others were pulled from a train by BART police after a report of a fight. The train was held, while police detained all of the suspects involved. Three of the suspects were already handcuffed, while Oscar Grant wasn’t. He was cooperative with police officers as reported by witnesses, and as even seen on camera footage. Three officers pulled Oscar Grant from a seated position on the train station wall, to a face first position on the floor. As one officer held Grant by his neck to the floor, Officer Johannes Mehserle (who was on Grant’s back) pulled out his gun, took a step back, and fired a shot right into the back of the restrained Oscar Grant. The bullet entered Grant’s back, went through him, ricocheted off of the concrete floor of the station and punctured his lungs. As Grant lay there choking on his own blood, the police continued to handcuff him, and threatened passengers as well as his friends with arrest. The officers eventually called the ambulance, but it was too late. Oscar Grant died on the way to the hospital. The Officer, who fired the shot, clearly had no reason to even pull out his weapon; let alone fire it. There was even one point in the incident when Oscar Grant held his hands in surrender to the Officers who surrounded him.
What is even more horrific about this situation is that the police tried to confiscate all cell phone videos taken during the shooting, and initially claimed security cameras didn’t record the incident. It would seem that the guilt of killing an innocent man would be enough to convict any sane or rational person, but to try and cover up an obvious wrong with lies and deceit places this matter in an even greater level of unethical, unjust, and diabolical behavior done against another human being. It seems that despite of all the progressions of justice we make as a society, there are even greater strides made to produce an unjust society. The sad reality is that in many cases, those strides of unethical/unjust achievements are made by those placed in power as well as authority to protect and serve the people. What does a society do when angels become demons? What does a world do when the executive branch of the law or government has failed the people and when the protected needs to be protected from the “protector?” These questions really present a challenge of moral decline, and hopelessness in our world. Oscar Grant and so many others are the victims of such moral sin and iniquity committed by those who feel they are above the law, simply because they carry a badge. When we observe the character of our nation, we as people of faith are urged and pressed to pray, stand, and fight against every act of injustice from the police department toward our innocent brothers and sisters who are being slaughtered at this very moment. At this very moment, a four year old daughter is left without a father, due to the actions of Officer Johannes Mehserle on that New Year’s morning. Any police officer, who betrays the people he should protect by taking his or her life, belongs behind bars with all of the other murderers that our nation has claimed to protect society from.
It was 2 a.m. on New Years day 2009, when 22 year old Oscar Grant (African American), was shot in the back and killed by Bay Area Rapid Transit Police. At the time Grant was shot, he was unarmed, restrained, and handcuffed. Grant and several others were pulled from a train by BART police after a report of a fight. The train was held, while police detained all of the suspects involved. Three of the suspects were already handcuffed, while Oscar Grant wasn’t. He was cooperative with police officers as reported by witnesses, and as even seen on camera footage. Three officers pulled Oscar Grant from a seated position on the train station wall, to a face first position on the floor. As one officer held Grant by his neck to the floor, Officer Johannes Mehserle (who was on Grant’s back) pulled out his gun, took a step back, and fired a shot right into the back of the restrained Oscar Grant. The bullet entered Grant’s back, went through him, ricocheted off of the concrete floor of the station and punctured his lungs. As Grant lay there choking on his own blood, the police continued to handcuff him, and threatened passengers as well as his friends with arrest. The officers eventually called the ambulance, but it was too late. Oscar Grant died on the way to the hospital. The Officer, who fired the shot, clearly had no reason to even pull out his weapon; let alone fire it. There was even one point in the incident when Oscar Grant held his hands in surrender to the Officers who surrounded him.
What is even more horrific about this situation is that the police tried to confiscate all cell phone videos taken during the shooting, and initially claimed security cameras didn’t record the incident. It would seem that the guilt of killing an innocent man would be enough to convict any sane or rational person, but to try and cover up an obvious wrong with lies and deceit places this matter in an even greater level of unethical, unjust, and diabolical behavior done against another human being. It seems that despite of all the progressions of justice we make as a society, there are even greater strides made to produce an unjust society. The sad reality is that in many cases, those strides of unethical/unjust achievements are made by those placed in power as well as authority to protect and serve the people. What does a society do when angels become demons? What does a world do when the executive branch of the law or government has failed the people and when the protected needs to be protected from the “protector?” These questions really present a challenge of moral decline, and hopelessness in our world. Oscar Grant and so many others are the victims of such moral sin and iniquity committed by those who feel they are above the law, simply because they carry a badge. When we observe the character of our nation, we as people of faith are urged and pressed to pray, stand, and fight against every act of injustice from the police department toward our innocent brothers and sisters who are being slaughtered at this very moment. At this very moment, a four year old daughter is left without a father, due to the actions of Officer Johannes Mehserle on that New Year’s morning. Any police officer, who betrays the people he should protect by taking his or her life, belongs behind bars with all of the other murderers that our nation has claimed to protect society from.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Paving Paradise
Have you ever heard the song, Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell? Well, this past week, I’ve had that song in my head and it will not go away. In the words of Joni Mitchell, “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” The paradise I’m thinking about is right here in our own Claremont neighborhood. It is the Bernard Field Station that is just east of our campus. The parking lot that I’m thinking about is the proposed Harvey Mudd College parking lot that will be on 11.5 acres of this land. While plans have not yet been finalized, construction may start as early as this summer.
These 11.5 acres of land sits on 86 acres of the Bernard Field Station. It is a piece of land that many of us see every day as we drive into and out of our own Claremont School of Theology campus. But did you know this land is an endangered coastal sage scrub ecosystem. Tearing down even a small part of this land would have an effect on this ecosystem. For example, if the parking lot or a similar structure was built, the number of vernal pools on the property would grow smaller and this in turn would affect the toad population that breeds in the pools.
The land is owned by Harvey Mudd College. Harvey Mudd is part of the Claremont Colleges consortium. They plan to build an environmentally conscious “green” parking lot. According to The Claremont Independent News, “the planned parking lot would have photovoltaic shades that generate electricity, plug-ins for electric vehicles, and bioswales to capture potentially hazardous run-off to mitigate its impact on the environment and the adjacent [Bernard] field station.”[1] This sounds great and the intention to help the environment is there, but in all seriousness, can developing a parking lot on a natural piece of land truly be the right thing to do?
I attended an undergraduate university that had over 20,000 students. So trust me, I can relate to how hard it is for students when parking is limited. However, I echo the sentiments of Paul Keller Ort, a Pomona College senior and member of the Students for the Bernard Field Station group. Mr. Ort said, “parking lots cannot be green. It violates all principles of environmentalism and sustainability to suggest that the destruction of native habitat for the creation of a parking lot can be justified as green.”[2] I don’t believe the benefit of having more parking spaces for students and faculty outweigh the irreversible harm that would happen to the ecosystem of this piece of land.
I hope the Claremont Colleges consortium looks at other alternatives. My undergrad university had a satellite parking lot that was less than a mile away from the school and offered a free shuttle service to and from the school. Many students, faculty and Claremont residents also believe that the building a parking lot on this land is harmful for the environment. They have written letters to the Claremont Colleges, distributed petitions and even formed website groups. It will be interesting to see what will happen in the months ahead. I hope it’s not too late for us to know what we’ve got ‘til it’s gone!
[1] www.claremontindependent.com/news/2008/12/11/Campus/Paving Our Way to A Greener Future-3572960.shtml
[2]www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/07/Paving Paradise?
These 11.5 acres of land sits on 86 acres of the Bernard Field Station. It is a piece of land that many of us see every day as we drive into and out of our own Claremont School of Theology campus. But did you know this land is an endangered coastal sage scrub ecosystem. Tearing down even a small part of this land would have an effect on this ecosystem. For example, if the parking lot or a similar structure was built, the number of vernal pools on the property would grow smaller and this in turn would affect the toad population that breeds in the pools.
The land is owned by Harvey Mudd College. Harvey Mudd is part of the Claremont Colleges consortium. They plan to build an environmentally conscious “green” parking lot. According to The Claremont Independent News, “the planned parking lot would have photovoltaic shades that generate electricity, plug-ins for electric vehicles, and bioswales to capture potentially hazardous run-off to mitigate its impact on the environment and the adjacent [Bernard] field station.”[1] This sounds great and the intention to help the environment is there, but in all seriousness, can developing a parking lot on a natural piece of land truly be the right thing to do?
I attended an undergraduate university that had over 20,000 students. So trust me, I can relate to how hard it is for students when parking is limited. However, I echo the sentiments of Paul Keller Ort, a Pomona College senior and member of the Students for the Bernard Field Station group. Mr. Ort said, “parking lots cannot be green. It violates all principles of environmentalism and sustainability to suggest that the destruction of native habitat for the creation of a parking lot can be justified as green.”[2] I don’t believe the benefit of having more parking spaces for students and faculty outweigh the irreversible harm that would happen to the ecosystem of this piece of land.
I hope the Claremont Colleges consortium looks at other alternatives. My undergrad university had a satellite parking lot that was less than a mile away from the school and offered a free shuttle service to and from the school. Many students, faculty and Claremont residents also believe that the building a parking lot on this land is harmful for the environment. They have written letters to the Claremont Colleges, distributed petitions and even formed website groups. It will be interesting to see what will happen in the months ahead. I hope it’s not too late for us to know what we’ve got ‘til it’s gone!
[1] www.claremontindependent.com/news/2008/12/11/Campus/Paving Our Way to A Greener Future-3572960.shtml
[2]www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/07/Paving Paradise?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Freeganism
This comes as a strange topic in the vast range of topics in which ethics could be applied, but I began to ask myself questions about the ethics of Freeganism. Freeganism is built from the word veganism, which is the rejection of all things made with animal products. With Freeganism, people opt out of the corporate system by refusing to participate in the economic structure by using bartering, alternative human powered transportation, thrift shopping, and the most controversial, dumpster diving.
Yes I, as a 40+ year old seminarian, went dumpster diving with some friends last Sunday. I thought it might make a good academic exercise, and I would see what the big deal was about. What we found spoke volumes about what it means to live in a disposable society, and who can afford to opt out.
We met at a parking lot in Pasadena behind a fast food restaurant. Next door was a well known grocery store that has a lot of healthy food. We waited until the last of the staff left at 10:30 pm and went over. The more agile of the bunch climbed into the dumpster and started opening plastic bags. We found about 20 bags of organic apples that were still crisp and did not appear to have anything wrong. Perhaps apples are going out of season. Bags and bags of bread from sandwich rolls, to crumpets, to whole wheat sourdough and lemon bread were found. All clean because they had been in the bags. Hams, smoked turkey, salmon, lamb tips and cheese that had been thrown away after closing were still cold. Organic tomatoes, and bell peppers where thrown away. Food that expired the next day were also thrown away like bagged salads, and the aforementioned lemon bread. The jackpot to me was one of the spiral cut hams that were sold for Easter.
We took our haul back to the parking lot behind the fast food place, and distributed based on what was needed and wanted. I barely buy meat anymore because of the expense, but smoked ham and turkey is smoked for preservation. There was nothing wrong with it that it was not out on the shelf an hour or two before.
The group was a bunch of young white people with a South American woman and one Asian woman, and I, who also passes as white. So when the security guard drove by, he looked at us and kept driving his golf cart. How different would it have been if we were black, or dressed in gang attire, or obviously homeless? I understand that some security guards put up a fuss at different stores, but we lucked out this time. So another question is, were we stealing? Trespassing? The store had thrown out the stuff, so was it still their property? If everything was packed into clean plastic garbage bags, is there some expectation that this food will be found and taken? What about the hungry, the poor, the homeless? Why can they not be recipients of this largess? I imagine there are safe food handling laws.
I made some meals this week that were like living a much larger income. While I am working on a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, I was appalled at the amount of meat thrown away. Pounds and pounds of thawing frozen ground turkey and cut up chickens were also there. I have not heard of or suffered any ill effects this week.
Will I go again? I am not sure. But it was an eye opening experience.
Yes I, as a 40+ year old seminarian, went dumpster diving with some friends last Sunday. I thought it might make a good academic exercise, and I would see what the big deal was about. What we found spoke volumes about what it means to live in a disposable society, and who can afford to opt out.
We met at a parking lot in Pasadena behind a fast food restaurant. Next door was a well known grocery store that has a lot of healthy food. We waited until the last of the staff left at 10:30 pm and went over. The more agile of the bunch climbed into the dumpster and started opening plastic bags. We found about 20 bags of organic apples that were still crisp and did not appear to have anything wrong. Perhaps apples are going out of season. Bags and bags of bread from sandwich rolls, to crumpets, to whole wheat sourdough and lemon bread were found. All clean because they had been in the bags. Hams, smoked turkey, salmon, lamb tips and cheese that had been thrown away after closing were still cold. Organic tomatoes, and bell peppers where thrown away. Food that expired the next day were also thrown away like bagged salads, and the aforementioned lemon bread. The jackpot to me was one of the spiral cut hams that were sold for Easter.
We took our haul back to the parking lot behind the fast food place, and distributed based on what was needed and wanted. I barely buy meat anymore because of the expense, but smoked ham and turkey is smoked for preservation. There was nothing wrong with it that it was not out on the shelf an hour or two before.
The group was a bunch of young white people with a South American woman and one Asian woman, and I, who also passes as white. So when the security guard drove by, he looked at us and kept driving his golf cart. How different would it have been if we were black, or dressed in gang attire, or obviously homeless? I understand that some security guards put up a fuss at different stores, but we lucked out this time. So another question is, were we stealing? Trespassing? The store had thrown out the stuff, so was it still their property? If everything was packed into clean plastic garbage bags, is there some expectation that this food will be found and taken? What about the hungry, the poor, the homeless? Why can they not be recipients of this largess? I imagine there are safe food handling laws.
I made some meals this week that were like living a much larger income. While I am working on a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, I was appalled at the amount of meat thrown away. Pounds and pounds of thawing frozen ground turkey and cut up chickens were also there. I have not heard of or suffered any ill effects this week.
Will I go again? I am not sure. But it was an eye opening experience.
Decades of Denial
Though for some people controversial, many reliable historical and academic sources, documents, photos, and eyewitness’ accounts indicate that 1.5 million Christian Armenians were massacred in their ancestral land by Ottoman Turkey during the Armenian Genocide, which started in 1890s, and reached its climax in 1915. Women were raped in front of their children and husbands, children were brutally beaten and killed in front of their parents, homes and properties were confiscated. Hundreds of thousands innocent people were harassed, abused, robbed, killed and deprived of everything they had in the true sense of the word.[1] To totally eradicate the Armenian population of the Western Armenia (nowadays Eastern Turkey), the Ottoman Turkey employs his long intended project of deportation and death marches made up of women, children and the elderly into the Syrian deserts, Deir ez Zor. During those marches hundreds of thousand were killed by Turkish soldiers, gendarmes and Kurdish mobs. Others died because of famine, epidemic diseases and exposure to the elements.[2] Tens of thousands were forcibly converted to Islam.
During this period of time, numerous Armenian churches were destroyed, and clergy killed, many schools were demolished, and sacred literature burned.[3] In his official telegraph addressed to the
“You have already been advised that the Government, by order of the Djemiet, has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons [Armenians] living in
All who oppose this decision and command cannot remain on the official staff of the empire.
Their existence must come to an end, however tragic the means may be; and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to conscientious scruples.”[4]
This unspeakable crime against humanity, the genocide, could have been prevented, if the entire world would not turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the tragic happenings. The
Years later, Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Nazi Germany, in justifying his inhuman atrocities would say,
“I have placed my death-head formations in readiness - for the present only in the East - with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”[6] (This text is the English version of the German document handed to Louis P. Lochner in
Even nowadays, when many of us pretend to be the most just advocates of human rights, and freedom of nations in this globalized democratic world, only a few countries officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Logically, those who do not recognize and condemn the Genocide are in the line with the deniers like
Every year, on April 24, Armenians in the world come together to commemorate the first genocide of the 20th century. Every year, when the Armenian Genocide Remembrance day approaches, prominent statesmen make promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide but generally, they all betray their promises. Many political scientists, analysts and scholars believe that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by
The only
“I received and read this document [official communication from the Secretary of the Senate of the United States] with great interest and with genuine gratification, not only because it embodied my own convictions and feelings with regard to Armenia and its people, but also, and more particularly, because it seemed to me the voice of the American people expressing their genuine convictions and deep Christian sympathies, and intimating the line of duty which seemed to them to lie clearly before us.”[11]
Unfortunately, domestic opposition led by the Republican Party leveled the good intentions and the plans of the president. Studying the above mentioned document closely, I was struck by President Wilson’s Christian convictions, which he emphasizes so strongly. Biographers affirm that President Wilson was a devout Presbyterian, follower of the Calvinist theological tradition. I believe that
Rosemary Radford Ruether, in her
President Woodrow Wilson was on the same page with Roger Williams. In his mandate for 
ongs to the natives, to those who first settled it.[13]
I think President Woodrow Wilson’s brave expression of morality, ethics and true Christian spirit answers also Jeffrey Stout’s question whether reasoning from religious premises to political conclusions can be considered valid and acceptable.
Mass killings of innocent people continue even today. We are all witnessing the contemporary genocides in Darfur and
[1] Bertha S. Papazian, The Tragedy of
[2] http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/armenian_genocide.php (visited on 04/25/2009)
[3] Torkom Manoogian, Loss of the Armenian Apostolic Church during the Genocide (New York: St. Vartan, 1972), 10.
[4] http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/turkish.php (visited on 04/25/2009)
[5] Sample documents from the above mentioned archives can be found on the web at http://www.armenian-genocide.org/sampledocs.html, http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/austrian.php and elswhere.
[6] Kevork B. Bardakjian, Hitler and the Armenian Genocide (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Zoryan Institute, 1985).
[7] http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hitler.html (visited on 04/25/2009)
[8] http://glendalenewspress.com/articles/2009/04/26/news/gnp-genocide25.art.txt (visited on 04/25/2009)
[9] Teresa Watanabe Christi Parsons, “Marking Armenian Genocide, Many Feel Snubbed by Obama,”
[10] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-of-President-Barack-Obama-on-Armenian-Remembrance-Day/ (visited on 04/25/2009).
[11] http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.64/current_category.4/affirmation_detail.html (visited on 04/25/2009).
[12] Rosemary
[13] http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Wilsonian_Armenia (visited on 04/25/2009)
Fighting in Hockey Games
It’s the Stanley Cup playoff time in the National Hockey League. The question I have is if fighting by hockey players is ethical or morally correct?
Usually, I can’t watch a hockey game all the way through, because inevitably, there is a fight and I can’t stand to watch the gloves off, helmets off, hitting in the head and punching in the face.
Some say its just part of the sport and it’s a way to get the frustrations out (often started by the team that is behind or scoreless). It seems that the officials wait until the fighting players start to slow down before they go in and break it up (because its safer to wait and easier) and then the players who were fighting, go sit in the penalty box and their teams play without them or anyone to take their place.
I don’t understand why it’s even allowed or should I say even tolerated. What does fighting during a hockey game have to do with playing the game of hockey? No one is attempting to get a puck into the net during that time. No one is blocking the puck from going into the goal during a fight. No one is even passing the puck. The game comes to a complete stop. In fact I think the puck is completely ignored during the fight.
The official ruling body doesn’t think there should be fighting, because it is against the rules to fight, and there is a penalty attached if one is caught fighting. The penalty includes five minutes in the penalty box for the players participating in the fight and the team or teams have to play short their players during that penalty time. So the teams are also penalized. If there is a penalty is cannot be considered a part of the game of hockey or at least it is not behavior that should happen during a hockey game.
I will try to refrain from talking about how the penalty for fighting is five minutes and for “misconduct” is ten minutes! This is just not right! Fighting and misconduct are two different rules and penalties. Why they are different, I’m not sure. How misconduct could be “less” of a wrong behavior, I’m not sure. The only sort of concession is that the team has to play shorthanded during the fighting penalty, but not during the misconduct penalty. BUT this is a completely different discussion. Except that society seems to be able to tolerate fighting easier than misconduct. What does that say?
The question is how can fighting be accepted as “part of the game” when it has nothing to do with the game of hockey? “Part of the game” is defined as no suspension and a lesser penalty than misconduct. Why isn’t the penalty as strong as it is with other sports such as football, baseball, and basketball, where the players are suspended for fighting?
Why is it ok to take children to hockey games and let them witness this behavior? Does this not teach them that the behavior is acceptable?
This can seem like such a frivolous subject, but sometimes it’s the little things that the society tolerates that point to bigger issues. I can’t buy the reason that it’s ok to fight during a hockey game because they are just letting off steam. I think that it is ethical and morally wrong.
Usually, I can’t watch a hockey game all the way through, because inevitably, there is a fight and I can’t stand to watch the gloves off, helmets off, hitting in the head and punching in the face.
Some say its just part of the sport and it’s a way to get the frustrations out (often started by the team that is behind or scoreless). It seems that the officials wait until the fighting players start to slow down before they go in and break it up (because its safer to wait and easier) and then the players who were fighting, go sit in the penalty box and their teams play without them or anyone to take their place.
I don’t understand why it’s even allowed or should I say even tolerated. What does fighting during a hockey game have to do with playing the game of hockey? No one is attempting to get a puck into the net during that time. No one is blocking the puck from going into the goal during a fight. No one is even passing the puck. The game comes to a complete stop. In fact I think the puck is completely ignored during the fight.
The official ruling body doesn’t think there should be fighting, because it is against the rules to fight, and there is a penalty attached if one is caught fighting. The penalty includes five minutes in the penalty box for the players participating in the fight and the team or teams have to play short their players during that penalty time. So the teams are also penalized. If there is a penalty is cannot be considered a part of the game of hockey or at least it is not behavior that should happen during a hockey game.
I will try to refrain from talking about how the penalty for fighting is five minutes and for “misconduct” is ten minutes! This is just not right! Fighting and misconduct are two different rules and penalties. Why they are different, I’m not sure. How misconduct could be “less” of a wrong behavior, I’m not sure. The only sort of concession is that the team has to play shorthanded during the fighting penalty, but not during the misconduct penalty. BUT this is a completely different discussion. Except that society seems to be able to tolerate fighting easier than misconduct. What does that say?
The question is how can fighting be accepted as “part of the game” when it has nothing to do with the game of hockey? “Part of the game” is defined as no suspension and a lesser penalty than misconduct. Why isn’t the penalty as strong as it is with other sports such as football, baseball, and basketball, where the players are suspended for fighting?
Why is it ok to take children to hockey games and let them witness this behavior? Does this not teach them that the behavior is acceptable?
This can seem like such a frivolous subject, but sometimes it’s the little things that the society tolerates that point to bigger issues. I can’t buy the reason that it’s ok to fight during a hockey game because they are just letting off steam. I think that it is ethical and morally wrong.
Be a friend to the nature
Do you remember this picture?
A forest fire happened on a mountain in Australia about two month ago.
This picture was taken in the midst of burned forest.
There are a koala and a volunteer, David Tree, in this picture.
This is the description of this news: David found this koala when he was going to somewhere to extinguish the fire with his colleagues. When David found the koala which was alone in a street, David went closely to this koala, but the koala ran away from him. However, the koala stopped running and sat on the heap of ashes. At that time, David went to the koala and then gave him water. This koala drank three water bottles.
Look at a forefoot of a koala.
He put his forefoot on a hand of David.
The koala seems to say that “I trust you” “You are my friend.”
Sometimes, human being seems forget that we are a part of nature.
People separate themselves from the nature although we are the part of the nature which God created.
Also, people misunderstand the nature as our possession. Due to those thoughts which I explained above, people waste resources gained by the nature and destroy the environment. In other words, people have governed the nature during long times.
The reason why people have a sense of a patriarch toward the nature is that human being misunderstood the Bible. Many Christians think that God gave us an authority to govern the nature.
However, this is not true. God’s will is that God gave people just a chance to guard the nature, not an authority to govern the nature.
Therefore, people need to recover our own duty which God gave us.
We are no longer dominators of the nature.
We are guardians for the nature.
We are the part of the nature.
We are friends to the nature.
A forest fire happened on a mountain in Australia about two month ago.
This picture was taken in the midst of burned forest.
There are a koala and a volunteer, David Tree, in this picture.
This is the description of this news: David found this koala when he was going to somewhere to extinguish the fire with his colleagues. When David found the koala which was alone in a street, David went closely to this koala, but the koala ran away from him. However, the koala stopped running and sat on the heap of ashes. At that time, David went to the koala and then gave him water. This koala drank three water bottles.
Look at a forefoot of a koala.
He put his forefoot on a hand of David.
The koala seems to say that “I trust you” “You are my friend.”
Sometimes, human being seems forget that we are a part of nature.
People separate themselves from the nature although we are the part of the nature which God created.
Also, people misunderstand the nature as our possession. Due to those thoughts which I explained above, people waste resources gained by the nature and destroy the environment. In other words, people have governed the nature during long times.
The reason why people have a sense of a patriarch toward the nature is that human being misunderstood the Bible. Many Christians think that God gave us an authority to govern the nature.
However, this is not true. God’s will is that God gave people just a chance to guard the nature, not an authority to govern the nature.
Therefore, people need to recover our own duty which God gave us.
We are no longer dominators of the nature.
We are guardians for the nature.
We are the part of the nature.
We are friends to the nature.
Immigration
There have been lots of emotional arguments against undocumented immigrants and now more than ever, in this bad economy. There are some that say immigrants are contributing to the situation, making things worse, or are a strain on the economy. “Many Americans fear that immigrants take away jobs and lower the wages of native-born workers. However, national research shows that this is not true and the fears are unfounded. Alan Krueger, Professor of
Economics at Princeton University speculates that there is a complex array of reasons for this. Some likely factors he identifies are: In addition to increasing the supply of labor, immigrants increase the demand for goods and services produced in the U.S. In other words, they are buying food and other goods for daily living, paying rents and buying all kinds of services. This leads to higher wages and employment for all workers in the U.S.”[1] They use public transportation, which supports cities. Also support and donate funds to their local churches, they contribute to society just like any other resident does.
As an immigrant I understand the discrimination and prejudices that immigrants endure. We are seen by many as coming to the U.S. to get on government assistance, to have children who will be US citizens and then can abuse the system. I have to admit that there are some immigrants who do abuse the system. But there are also so many immigrants who come to the US for a better life, for the American dream, which includes work and education. “Researcher Tarrabox notes that it is a well known fact that many of the jobs immigrants come here to fill are jobs Americans are not taking. And when we prevent immigrants from taking those jobs, American producers and consumers suffer the consequences…Less well known is that many jobs immigrants take are jobs that would have other been outsourced. Nearly one-third of U.S. garment workers are immigrants…if it were not for immigration, we’d likely be importing even more clothing”[2] There are many jobs that some Americans would not be caught dead doing, especially educated Americans, like fieldwork picking or selling food in the hot sun, or working in sweatshops. Working at a fast food restaurant would probably be the most suffering an educated American would be willing to endure. Ask yourself having a degree would you work at Jack in the Box, or cutting the heads of chickens at foster farms? I have relatives who do these things, who pick fruit, and sell oranges. Who are maids and work in sweatshops. My family and extended family is new to this country, and they have worked hard to survive so their children could have a better future and not have to work as hard as their parents did.
What do you think about immigration? I know we all try to be sensitive to the struggles people in the margins endure, but are we really doing something? Do we not look at them sometimes and make assumptions, like they are all from Mexico? Or that all illegal immigrants are Hispanic? Should they be forced to learn English? Do you get irritated when you have to press “1” for English?
[1] http://www.ilctr.org/news/pdf/imm_job_and_labor.pdf
[2] http://www.ilctr.org/news/pdf/imm_job_and_labor.pdf
Economics at Princeton University speculates that there is a complex array of reasons for this. Some likely factors he identifies are: In addition to increasing the supply of labor, immigrants increase the demand for goods and services produced in the U.S. In other words, they are buying food and other goods for daily living, paying rents and buying all kinds of services. This leads to higher wages and employment for all workers in the U.S.”[1] They use public transportation, which supports cities. Also support and donate funds to their local churches, they contribute to society just like any other resident does.
As an immigrant I understand the discrimination and prejudices that immigrants endure. We are seen by many as coming to the U.S. to get on government assistance, to have children who will be US citizens and then can abuse the system. I have to admit that there are some immigrants who do abuse the system. But there are also so many immigrants who come to the US for a better life, for the American dream, which includes work and education. “Researcher Tarrabox notes that it is a well known fact that many of the jobs immigrants come here to fill are jobs Americans are not taking. And when we prevent immigrants from taking those jobs, American producers and consumers suffer the consequences…Less well known is that many jobs immigrants take are jobs that would have other been outsourced. Nearly one-third of U.S. garment workers are immigrants…if it were not for immigration, we’d likely be importing even more clothing”[2] There are many jobs that some Americans would not be caught dead doing, especially educated Americans, like fieldwork picking or selling food in the hot sun, or working in sweatshops. Working at a fast food restaurant would probably be the most suffering an educated American would be willing to endure. Ask yourself having a degree would you work at Jack in the Box, or cutting the heads of chickens at foster farms? I have relatives who do these things, who pick fruit, and sell oranges. Who are maids and work in sweatshops. My family and extended family is new to this country, and they have worked hard to survive so their children could have a better future and not have to work as hard as their parents did.
What do you think about immigration? I know we all try to be sensitive to the struggles people in the margins endure, but are we really doing something? Do we not look at them sometimes and make assumptions, like they are all from Mexico? Or that all illegal immigrants are Hispanic? Should they be forced to learn English? Do you get irritated when you have to press “1” for English?
[1] http://www.ilctr.org/news/pdf/imm_job_and_labor.pdf
[2] http://www.ilctr.org/news/pdf/imm_job_and_labor.pdf
Religious Conversion and Baptism in Children
In an article by BBC on Thursday April 23, BBC reported that Prime Minister Najib Razakof Malaysia has banned the religious conversion of children without both parents’ consent.”[1] Recently in Malaysia there has been legal problems regarding children’s conversion to Islam by one parent without the other’s parent consent. In one example “M. Indira Gandhi, a 34-year-old ethnic Indian kindergarten teacher, plans to file a civil suit to contest her estranged husband's conversion of their children to Islam earlier this month without her consent, said her lawyer A. Sivanesan.”[2]Her husband was awarded custody of the children in an Islamic court earlier that year and then converted the children to Islam without her consent. “Malaysia has a two-tier court system for family matters - secular courts for non-Muslims, Shariah courts for Muslims. Minority Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist followers often complain that in disputes involving Muslims, the Shariah courts get jurisdiction and often rule against them.” Thus fueling the Prime Minister’s decision to rule religious conversion of the children without both parent’s consent.
Raised as a Protestant Christian in the Disciples of Christ faith I was always encouraged to explore my relationship with Jesus before making the decision to be baptized. I made the decision to be baptized in fifth grade after completing the preparation course that my church required. Looking back on the experience now, I am still happy that I made the decision to be baptized. However, part of me wishes I had more exposure to other faiths during before making this decision. I am a firm believer that it MUST be an individual choice to be baptized into any church. I do however believe in dedications to raise a child in the church until they can make their own decision. The situation in Malaysia made me think of the many worldwide issues of religious child conversion by parents who are going through a divorce and also the ethical issues of baptizing children at such a young age. I believe that there is a point when each individual reaches the point in their faith when they want to commit themselves to God and to their community and then and only then should they chose to be baptized. Some churches, however, emphasize the importance of baptizing the child as a baby to ensure that they are “saved” through the church.
So my question that I pose is, is it religiously ethical to baptize children into a faith before they are able to make the informed decision for themselves? Should baptism be seen as a child’s right to chose or parent’s right to decide?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Marriage
When the issue of gay marriage was brought up during the Miss USA beauty pageant it seemed inevitable that someone was going to be offended. Miss California’s response that her beliefs were in line with a traditional definition of marriage brought a series of applause and boos from the crowd. Of course, when this issue is broached it is usually couched in an either/or framework. That is, whether or not one supports gay marriage usually is determined by his or her definition of marriage; one either believes marriage should be between a man and a woman or one supports the marriage between same-sex couples. Either response predictably upsets someone holding the other position which results in the tension experienced at the Miss USA pageant. Implicit in Miss California's response, indeed, with similar responses is the lack of support for gay rights. I find this implication curious. Of course, the idea that stating positional beliefs can alienate those who hold opposing stances is not an unusual concept. However, in the issue of same-sex marriage, how one defines marriage seems to be the factor that determines one's support for gay rights. This, I feel, is unfair. Primarily, the notion that one’s definition of marriage is necessarily indicative of their support (or lack thereof) toward gay rights is erroneous. When the institution of marriage is legislated it becomes understood in terms of both privilege and right. Marriage is not the right of all citizens. The mentally impaired do not have the right to marry, for example. Marriage is a privilege that not all citizens are able to engage in (pardon the pun). Moreover, there is not the blanket freedom for hetero-couples to marry. For example, a brother and sister cannot legally marry, nor could first cousins, a father and daughter, and so on. Marriage as a privilege is becoming more evident. Given the nature of legislated marriage it is clear that marriage is limited to the status quo: the non-related hetero couple. The notion that one’s definition of marriage determines their support of gay rights is thus unfair. It seems the argument that same-sex couples seek the same rights [read: to marry] as hetero couples should be amended to accommodate the privilege of marriage.
Another reason one’s definition of marriage should not be indicative of their support for gay rights is that citizen rights do not originate in legislation. Individual rights are considered self-evident in the constitution and are not emergent from it. If one were to desire the legislated benefits of marriage for all couples, the fight should not originate from the definition of marriage. Instead, the position should be located in the inherent rights of all human beings. Since the definition of marriage is a state and not a federal issue, citizens have the right to amend, appeal, and rewrite state constitutions, as we have witnessed in Prop 8. One can argue for rights of all humans and still hold to the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman insofar as he or she has the freedom to do so. Of course, there does seem to be an inconsistency here. If one’s definition of marriage is primarily indicative of one’s stance on gay rights then it follows that marriage will have to be defined as a right. Since this is not the case, as I argued above, and one believes the benefits of marriage should be available to all citizens, the position most appropriate here is to claim that all citizens should have access to the same benefits. This argument is not necessarily located within legislation on marriage, and so the fight for same-sex marriage will have to be done so at the state and individual level. In the meantime, the fight for equal benefits can be taken up wherever.
Another reason one’s definition of marriage should not be indicative of their support for gay rights is that citizen rights do not originate in legislation. Individual rights are considered self-evident in the constitution and are not emergent from it. If one were to desire the legislated benefits of marriage for all couples, the fight should not originate from the definition of marriage. Instead, the position should be located in the inherent rights of all human beings. Since the definition of marriage is a state and not a federal issue, citizens have the right to amend, appeal, and rewrite state constitutions, as we have witnessed in Prop 8. One can argue for rights of all humans and still hold to the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman insofar as he or she has the freedom to do so. Of course, there does seem to be an inconsistency here. If one’s definition of marriage is primarily indicative of one’s stance on gay rights then it follows that marriage will have to be defined as a right. Since this is not the case, as I argued above, and one believes the benefits of marriage should be available to all citizens, the position most appropriate here is to claim that all citizens should have access to the same benefits. This argument is not necessarily located within legislation on marriage, and so the fight for same-sex marriage will have to be done so at the state and individual level. In the meantime, the fight for equal benefits can be taken up wherever.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Dollars From Hell by Jim McGrath
I’ve never missed an episode of 24. Well-meaning people criticize it, saying it is pro-torture and pro-war propaganda. Its hero, Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, lives in a continual state of urgency, constantly confronting situations that ethically demand, for the greater good of all, that he do a lot of killing and torturing. In repeatedly dishing up, moment to moment, a steady stream of such demands, the writers of 24 would seem to be selling the ideology of war. This may seem the case to the casual viewer of 24, but I, who have never missed an episode, know different.
Take, for example, season two. At the start of the day, agent Jack Bauer is sent out to find and neutralize a nuclear bomb set to go off in Los Angeles that day by agents of a fictional Muslim mid-east nation. Once Jack has averted that disaster
, he finds evidence that this fictional Muslim nation had nothing to do with the attempt to kill millions of Americans. He has to prove it in order to stop the president from starting a war for no good reason. By the end of the season Jack proves that an American oil company executive set the bomb
in an attempt to get a middle east invasion started for reasons of profit.
That second season began airing in the fall of 2002. By the time that season ended in June of 2003, The United States had started a war with a non-fictional middle-eastern country for no good reason. Coincidence? Did 24 make us do it?
My father was a professor of broadcasting. He taught Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan taught that television was turning us all into hypnotized robots without our really knowing it. In the seventies it became fashionable for defense attorneys to blame the violence on television for acts of violence in the streets. In the nineties, newly-appointed Attorney General Janet Reno announced that she was going to get rid of all the violence… on television.
I do not agree with McLuhan. I believe that television is a mirror of who we are, not the cause. If Janet Reno had gotten rid of all the violence in the streets, the violence on television would have mysteriously disappeared. Television has no agenda other than to be watched by as many eyeballs as possible. If ten million people want to see it, television will air it.
Take for example the current season of 24. What at first appeared to be a threat to use chemical weapons on American cities from a rogue African dictator has now proved to be an attempt to hold the safety of Americans hostage by a private military contractor called “Starkwood.” Starkwood has a counterpart in reality called Blackwater.
In his book The Way of the World, published during the final months of the Bush administration, Ron Suskind described the secret White House meetings that led to the current situations, meetings between Bush and Chaney in which no notes were taken, no paper trail left at all. Thes
e backroom discussions led not only to torture and war, but to a new way of spending the government’s money on the means of war. “With almost no public debate, the Bush administration has outsourced to the private sector many of the functions historically handled by the military.”[1] This is a new army, one in which a combat soldier can make six hundred dollars a day taking orders from commanders who have no accountability t
o internationally recognized treaties or rules of war.
In the revised edition of his book Blackwater, Jeremy Scahill writes of the suddenness with which Blackwater became a major force in the world. “Almost overnight, following the great tragedy of September 11, a company that had barely existed a few years earlier would become a central player in a global war waged by the mightiest empire in history.”[2] According to Blackwater’s founder and commander-in-chief Erik Prince, “Our corporate goal is to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did to t
he postal service.”[3] In other words, our wars are being fought by a new army of profiteers, mercenaries, black ops experts, and what Rob Suskind calls “can-do guys.” “Can-do guys may end up running the world – and doing all sorts of things, no questions asked, in the name of America – unless they can be stopped first. And that’s really an issue between the American people and their government.”[4]
On September 16, 2007, some of Blackwater’s can-do guys killed 17 Iraqis in downtown Baghdad. The resulting inquiries cost Blackwater its license to operate in Iraq. Blackwater has since retrenched, changed its now infamous name to Xe, and issued press statements claiming a new focus on operating training centers.
The fact is that in a free market, profit is its own propelling force. Right now Blackwater (Xe) and other para-military contractors are harvesting several billion dollars a year from the budget of the United States government. Yes, they do want to keep that lucrative contract. And as long as everything is in place, they can expect more of the same from the Obama administration’s adventures in Afghanistan. But one of the things that absolutely HAS to be in place for this slaughter for profit operation to continue is the American public.
What we think, what we pray, what we know, how we spend our money, how we vote, and what we demand from our leaders still makes a difference. If it didn’t, why would they go to all the trouble of lying to us? Tonight’s evening news (April 22, 2009) reports that the Senate Armed Forces Committee is finding that top Bush administration officials ordered torture in order the gain testimony linking 9/11 to Iraq, so that WE would feel better about going to war.
In an interview on Bill Moyers PBS show on 2/15/08, Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason raised the question of why Americans were so willing to be lied to after 9/11. She blamed the erosion of historical memory caused by blind hatred of Muslims. As late as 2006, 90% of the American soldiers in Iraq believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11[5], two years after the 9/11 Commission found otherwise. In his examination of Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, Scahill found it “particularly scary about Blackwater’s role in a war that President Bush labeled ‘a crusade’…that the company’s leading executives are dedicated to a Christian-supremacist agenda.”[6] As responsible Christians, we must know, preach, and teach that hatred of Muslims makes war possible, palatable, and profitable.
[1] Ron Suskind, The Way of the World (New York, HarperCollins, 2008) 156.
[2] Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater (New York, Nation Books, 2008) 51.
[3] Erik Prince speaking at West 2006 conference, January 11, 2006.
[4] Suskind, 151.
[5] Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (Cambridge, Vanguard Press, 2008) 223.
[6] Scahill, 61.
Against Protectionism
In the midst of our ongoing economic difficulties, the tendency toward protectionism in our country has grown stronger and frequently manifested itself. This is understandable in the midst of rising national rates of home foreclosures and bankruptcies. An emotional and seemingly rational (if not somewhat resentful) reaction is protectionism, that is to assert that we’ve given enough to other countries and are justified in turning inward and looking to our own interests alone. However, as people of faith and as a nation, we must not forsake our tradition and heritage of giving to those people in other countries who are in even greater need; who live in even more dire straits than we do.
One reason for avoiding a protectionist response to our present situation is Biblical. It is commonly held that the Divine answer to Cain’s petulant question in Genesis 4:9, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was a resounding “Yes!” Yes, we are our brother’s keeper, and therefore, cannot in good conscience adopt a protectionist stance and hide our eyes from the need of our hungry brothers and sisters abroad (or at home). Furthermore, to continue to stretch out our hands to the hungry is to follow the example of Jesus. In John 13:27-29, after Jesus says to Judas Iscariot, “That thou doest, do quickly.” we read of some of the other disciples that they “. . . thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.” (Emphasis added.) Granted there’s a lot happening in this passage, but pertaining to our topic here, the disciples’ assumption regarding giving indicates that this was not something unusual; that it was Jesus’ and their common practice. They gave to those more unfortunate than themselves. Whether one venerates Jesus as Savior and Lord or simply respects him as a great teacher, the point remains that this is the example he set for good disciples/students to follow. Jesus’ example is even more challenging and poignant when we read his saying in Matthew 8:20, “. . . the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”, attesting to his own lack of wealth. One cannot faithfully obey Biblical teachings and Jesus’ example while simultaneously following a protectionist policy.
A second reason for avoiding protectionism was touched on in the previously paragraph, namely, that there is always someone worse off than ourselves to whom we can be of help. Please peruse the following information regarding the results of food shortages and drastic food price increases in various countries:
Afghanistan – Increased cases of families selling children, Rise in child labor cases
Egypt – 200 injured during protests against food (price) increases, Street fights over food
Pakistan – Increased number of suicides due to hunger and poverty
Yemen – Families cut meals to one a day, Increase in riots and robberies for food[1]
Thank God we are not so hard pressed as the people suffering these situations (and please God that we never are). This makes the point, though, that there are those in the world in much more dire straits than we are. Having the means, then, we ought, out of compassion and regard for their human worth and dignity, to do what we can to alleviate their suffering and reject a protectionist stance.
Finally, considering the words “do what we can” leads to the point that this maintaining a giving attitude is reasonable. God is reasonable and just; God is fair. Therefore, God (and reasonable persons) expect us to give according to our ability, both as individuals and as a nation. Bearing in mind that we are not being asked to give up our firstborn or our “seed corn” should help us to calm and avoid inflammatory protectionist feelings and reactions. This will help us focus on continuing to give, at home and abroad, according to our ability.
I hesitated to write this piece due to its subject matter seeming to be simplistic. However, I was recently in conversation with a usually courteous and kind Christian woman regarding this very topic of protectionism. She became so agitated and angry that she would not allow me to state my points, but instead cut me off in a fit of temper. This incident, along with discussions in the media and the above cited international data, convinced me instead that this was a timely topic, especially if our present economic situation gets worse before it gets better. In preparation against such a possibility, I encourage everyone to resolve ahead of time to remain generous people of faith, even if the temptation to protectionism gets worse before it gets better. Resist, resist, resist! Give, give, give!
[1] “Global Food Crisis: The Silent Tsunami, The Wave That’s Rippling Through the World,” Partnership: The Official Newsletter of Islamic Relief, (Fall, 2008), 5.
In the midst of our ongoing economic difficulties, the tendency toward protectionism in our country has grown stronger and frequently manifested itself. This is understandable in the midst of rising national rates of home foreclosures and bankruptcies. An emotional and seemingly rational (if not somewhat resentful) reaction is protectionism, that is to assert that we’ve given enough to other countries and are justified in turning inward and looking to our own interests alone. However, as people of faith and as a nation, we must not forsake our tradition and heritage of giving to those people in other countries who are in even greater need; who live in even more dire straits than we do.
One reason for avoiding a protectionist response to our present situation is Biblical. It is commonly held that the Divine answer to Cain’s petulant question in Genesis 4:9, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was a resounding “Yes!” Yes, we are our brother’s keeper, and therefore, cannot in good conscience adopt a protectionist stance and hide our eyes from the need of our hungry brothers and sisters abroad (or at home). Furthermore, to continue to stretch out our hands to the hungry is to follow the example of Jesus. In John 13:27-29, after Jesus says to Judas Iscariot, “That thou doest, do quickly.” we read of some of the other disciples that they “. . . thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.” (Emphasis added.) Granted there’s a lot happening in this passage, but pertaining to our topic here, the disciples’ assumption regarding giving indicates that this was not something unusual; that it was Jesus’ and their common practice. They gave to those more unfortunate than themselves. Whether one venerates Jesus as Savior and Lord or simply respects him as a great teacher, the point remains that this is the example he set for good disciples/students to follow. Jesus’ example is even more challenging and poignant when we read his saying in Matthew 8:20, “. . . the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”, attesting to his own lack of wealth. One cannot faithfully obey Biblical teachings and Jesus’ example while simultaneously following a protectionist policy.
A second reason for avoiding protectionism was touched on in the previously paragraph, namely, that there is always someone worse off than ourselves to whom we can be of help. Please peruse the following information regarding the results of food shortages and drastic food price increases in various countries:
Afghanistan – Increased cases of families selling children, Rise in child labor cases
Egypt – 200 injured during protests against food (price) increases, Street fights over food
Pakistan – Increased number of suicides due to hunger and poverty
Yemen – Families cut meals to one a day, Increase in riots and robberies for food[1]
Thank God we are not so hard pressed as the people suffering these situations (and please God that we never are). This makes the point, though, that there are those in the world in much more dire straits than we are. Having the means, then, we ought, out of compassion and regard for their human worth and dignity, to do what we can to alleviate their suffering and reject a protectionist stance.
Finally, considering the words “do what we can” leads to the point that this maintaining a giving attitude is reasonable. God is reasonable and just; God is fair. Therefore, God (and reasonable persons) expect us to give according to our ability, both as individuals and as a nation. Bearing in mind that we are not being asked to give up our firstborn or our “seed corn” should help us to calm and avoid inflammatory protectionist feelings and reactions. This will help us focus on continuing to give, at home and abroad, according to our ability.
I hesitated to write this piece due to its subject matter seeming to be simplistic. However, I was recently in conversation with a usually courteous and kind Christian woman regarding this very topic of protectionism. She became so agitated and angry that she would not allow me to state my points, but instead cut me off in a fit of temper. This incident, along with discussions in the media and the above cited international data, convinced me instead that this was a timely topic, especially if our present economic situation gets worse before it gets better. In preparation against such a possibility, I encourage everyone to resolve ahead of time to remain generous people of faith, even if the temptation to protectionism gets worse before it gets better. Resist, resist, resist! Give, give, give!
[1] “Global Food Crisis: The Silent Tsunami, The Wave That’s Rippling Through the World,” Partnership: The Official Newsletter of Islamic Relief, (Fall, 2008), 5.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Ethical Doubts
Las Vegas Review Journal Sunday April 12, 2009 From Associated Press Reporter Jamie Stengle
“Ethical doubts abound in case, mother harvests dead son’s sperm wants to raise child.”
Is this a case for the mother to visit a therapist or a new ethical dilemma? Either way the article points out that the technology is available to accomplish the task. Basically we have a young man whose life ceased at the age of 21 and the mother is allegedly fulfilling her sons request to father a child. The son was unmarried and the whole debate stems from the mother wanting this request fulfilled and for her to raise the child as her own son. “Missy Evans, the mother in question, has harvested the dead son’s sperm and hopes to find a surrogate ..” Missy claims this is what her son would have wanted ??????????
Tom Mayo, director of Southern Methodist University’s McGuire Center for Ethics and Responsibility says, “This is a tough way for a child to come into the world.”
Thoughts?
“Ethical doubts abound in case, mother harvests dead son’s sperm wants to raise child.”
Is this a case for the mother to visit a therapist or a new ethical dilemma? Either way the article points out that the technology is available to accomplish the task. Basically we have a young man whose life ceased at the age of 21 and the mother is allegedly fulfilling her sons request to father a child. The son was unmarried and the whole debate stems from the mother wanting this request fulfilled and for her to raise the child as her own son. “Missy Evans, the mother in question, has harvested the dead son’s sperm and hopes to find a surrogate ..” Missy claims this is what her son would have wanted ??????????
Tom Mayo, director of Southern Methodist University’s McGuire Center for Ethics and Responsibility says, “This is a tough way for a child to come into the world.”
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
