Christian Ethics

Piracy - No, not that kind

2009-04-29T17:00:00.000-07:00

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?

Police Brutality on New Years Day

2009-04-28T22:23:00.000-07:00

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.

Paving Paradise

2009-04-27T00:16:00.000-07:00

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?

Freeganism

2009-04-26T23:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Decades of Denial

2009-04-26T22:55:00.000-07:00

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 Prefecture of Aleppo, Minister of the Interior of Turkey, Talaat, writes,

“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 Turkey.

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 US archives still preserve the memoirs and official letters of the US Ambassador to Turkey at that time, Henry Morgenthau, who asks his country to help the Armenians. The German Ambassador to Turkey, Wangenheim, reports to his country on the atrocities committed by Turks against the unarmed Armenian population. No one responded, no one responds. Many other documents and factual evidences can be found in US, British, German, Austrian, Russian and French archives.[5] Unfortunately, the Turkish government has carefully destroyed own archives pertaining the Armenian massacres. But, again, who on earth can conceal the undeniable truth?

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 Berlin. It first appeared in Lochner's What About Germany? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1942), pp. 1-4. The Nuremberg Tribunal later identified the document as L-3 or Exhibit USA-28. Two other versions of the same document appear in Appendices II and III. For the German original cf. Akten zur Deutschen Auswartigen Politik 1918-1945, Serie D, Band VII, (Baden-Baden, 1956), pp. 171-172).[7]

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 Turkey, Israel, US, and the rest. For me, this is a moral, ethical and Christian issue. How can nations speak of human rights, freedom and stuff, when their decades’ of denial encouraged and allowed others to perpetrate atrocities of the same nature? Can we conclude that those lofty ideas (freedom, human rights, justice, democracy, etc.) are simply fictitious and made up criteria to deceive people? It goes without saying that every nation has its political interests and gains. But is it just to sacrifice the truth for the sake of political dividends? Doesn’t it contradict the teachings of Christianity and the spirit of Bible?

Every year, on April 24, Armenians in the world come together to commemorate the first genocide of the 20^th 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 Israel and US is very important at this point. They claim that once the United States of America and Israel recognize the Armenian Genocide, the whole world we accept the truth, and ultimately, Turkey will be obliged to admit it. Unfortunately, both countries fail to fulfill their moral obligation. Armenian-Americans (approximately 1.5 million) were very enthusiastic about President Barak Obama’s election. Barak Obama as a senator and presidential candidate, frequently supported efforts to recognize the mass killings using the word “genocide,” famously stating in a speech on Jan. 19, 2008, that “the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable ... and as president, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”[8] Now, when Barak Obama is the President of the United States of America, he betrays his promise. Lincoln McCurdy, the president of the Turkish coalition of America, said, “President Obama has sent a clear message to America and the world. His administration will not sacrifice long-term strategic allies for short-term political gains.”[9] Obviously, the denial continues. In his official statement, President Obama said, “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.”[10] It is clear and obvious from this statement that President Obama’s personal view is not the same as the view of the United States of America, and I wonder if these two different views will one day coincide. Isn’t it a moral issue? Isn’t it an ethical problem? Aren’t we dealing with double standards?

The only US President, who was sincerely concerned about the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, was Woodrow Wilson. In his message delivered on May 24, 1920 President Wilson requests the Congress to accept a mandate for Armenia. He says,

“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 Wilson’s moral and ethical standards were grounded on the Calvinist theology.

Rosemary Radford Ruether, in her America, Amerikkka: Elect Nation and Imperial Violence claims that some of the Puritans, among them Roger Williams, were inspired by that the same Calvinist theology. Roger Williams thought that no king could claim to override the rights of natural men in relation to land claims. Furthermore, he believed that land claims were based on the rights of those who first settled the land.[12]

President Woodrow Wilson was on the same page with Roger Williams. In his mandate for Armenia, as well as in his letter defining the borders between Armenia and Turkey, President Wilson was guided by the same Calvinist conviction, i.e. the land belongs 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 Rwanda. If we are going to turn a deaf ear to the cries of these dying people, if we are going to sacrifice the truth, our morality, conscience and values for the sake of political gains, the history will repeat itself. Genocides will happen again if we fail to recognize them, if we fail to condemn them.

[1] Bertha S. Papazian, The Tragedy of Armenia (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1918), 131.

[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,” Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2009.

[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 Radford Ruether, America, Amerikkka: Elect Nation and Imperial Violence (London: Equinox, 2007), p 217.

[13] http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Wilsonian_Armenia (visited on 04/25/2009)

Transportation Ethics

2009-04-26T22:39:00.000-07:00

The daily choice of how to travel to work and school has a cascading impact on ourselves, our neighbors, and the world we share. The harmful effects of driving gasoline-powered individual vehicles are generally discussed in terms of the most obvious effects, which are on the environment and human health. Chemicals in exhaust contribute to:

1. Global warming, which negatively affects people throughout the world, particularly those who are economically disadvantaged, by changing our planet's climate and disrupting normal weather patterns.
2. Acid rain, which can cause environmental and property damage far from the area where the compounds were first released
3. Ground-level ozone and smog.
4. Respiratory problems in the humans who breathe them. Some also directly reduce the oxygen available to our brains and other vital organs, which is especially harmful to people with heart disease.
5. Increased chances of other health problems, including cancer and birth defects.

We should also consider the environmental effects of manufacturing cars, including any hazardous substances used in that process and their effects on the factory workers who are daily exposed to them, as well as the effects of disposing of cars which are no longer usable. Also important are the effects of the processes that deliver gasoline to the tank, which include, but are not limited to, the effects of drilling for oil, oil spills during transportation, air pollution due to refineries, and soil and groundwater pollution due to leaking or overfilled fuel storage tanks.

There are also direct human costs in the form of deaths due to vehicle accidents. Although drinking is a factor in many accidents, it is its combination with driving that leads to deaths. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 1,200,000 people die every year due to car accidents, and 50,000,000 more are injured. Just within the USA, approximately 43,000 people die every year in collisions. This is more than the population of many towns. A complication is that people using the least environmentally-responsible means of transportation, such as SUVs and other heavy vehicles, are less likely to be injured or killed in a collision with people using more responsible means of transportation, such as walking, biking, standing on the curb waiting for a bus, or even driving a smaller, lighter vehicle with better gas mileage and a disadvantage in a collision. These choices seem to function like the classic prisoner's dilemma.

The practice of driving everywhere also has social costs. Driving rather than walking or biking contributes to a more sedentary lifestyle where exercise, if it happens, is separate from regular life. I would also suggest that regularly feeling stress because of traffic jams and rude drivers is not good for a person. Both of these factors could lead to increased medical problems and a decreased quality of life. Also, when we drive we have very little even casual contact with people unlike ourselves or with those who live in the communities we pass over on the highway. Sharing a bus or train with a cross-section of the humans who live in one's city is a more connected experience. Finally, as cars insulate us from the other humans around us, they also insulate us from the natural world. If we are less connected both to people unlike ourselves and to the natural world, perhaps we will be less likely to care about things which impact them.

It seems fair to say that the practice of using gasoline-powered vehicles for routine transportation negatively impacts both humans and the planet, and many of the impacts are born by people who did not cause the damage. I believe that this is unjust. There is no lack of solutions which have been proposed, and yet this continues to be a problem. Why do we do so little when so much is at stake?

We often like to calculate the costs and benefits of things, especially in terms of money. So, at what point can we, either as individuals or as a society, say that the convenience gained through this means of transportation is no longer worth the cost? Although I am certain that economists could calculate a dollar value for a spouse killed in a wreck, a child who struggles with asthma, and a sister who dies young of cancer, I am not at all sure that the value of a life is calculable. And how can anyone calculate the cost of the unpredictable destruction global warming is bringing, the worst of which will be born, not by those who caused it, but by those who did not? What of the intrinsic value of clean air and water, or of communities where people of different backgrounds enrich each others lives rather than walling the others away? How much effort or inconvenience on our part is appropriate to protect our air, our water, and our neighbors, both those near and those across the world? And what when it is our safety, and the safety of our loved ones, that we risk, knowing that some people will choose to drive less environmentally-responsible vehicles which give them an advantage (and others a disadvantage) in a collision?

Fighting in Hockey Games

2009-04-26T21:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Be a friend to the nature

2009-04-26T21:33:00.001-07:00

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.

Immigration

2009-04-26T21:12:00.000-07:00

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

Religious Conversion and Baptism in Children

2009-04-26T21:11:00.000-07:00

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?

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8014025.stm

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8014025.stm

Marriage

2009-04-24T21:17:00.000-07:00

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.

Dollars From Hell by Jim McGrath

2009-04-22T22:54:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-04-22T22:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Ethical Doubts

2009-04-20T09:17:00.000-07:00

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?

The Saemanguem Project

2009-04-16T14:46:00.000-07:00

We are living in an era of the most intensive natural environmental destruction the world has ever known, caused mainly by population increase and industrial development. The wetlands of Korea support a rich variety of birds including waterbirds and are an internationally well-known wintering site for migrant birds. However, many wetlands have been destroyed by a series of developments that include reclamation for agriculture purposes and industrial complexes.
For example, the Saemanguem (Chollabukdo, Korea) project is the largest reclamation project the world has ever known.

(The Saemanguem seawall is the longest in the world, and it is almost 33 Km – 21 miles.)

(Before the project)

(As a result of the project, there will be 28,300 hectares – 70,750 acres of land and 11,800 hectares – 29500 acres of lake.)

The project is driven by the government and has a political purpose (Chollabukdo is one of the most underdeveloped areas in Korea, so politicians have made campaign pledges to get elected.) and utilitarian standpoint.

(People who work at Saemanguem.)

Many studies have shown that the productivity of mudflats is 3-5 times higher than that of agricultural land converted from the mudflat of wetlands. Why, then, is the government carrying out the project? This is because the government did not know the value of wetlands when the project was started. Peter Kalm said that he found everywhere the wisdom and goodness of the Creator, but too seldom saw any inclination among men to make use of them. (Travels into North America, quoted in: American Environmental History (Joshep M. Petulla), San Francisco: Boyd and Fraser, 1977) Reclamation has led to a decrease in habitats of migratory birds, especially waders.
Why should we save the birds and fishes dwelling in wetlands? This is because the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it (Psalm 24:1); moreover, God ordered man to rule over the fish of the sea and birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground (Genesis 1:28). Lynn White Jr. pointed out that the problems of our ecologic crisis are problems of worldview, not merely of science or technology. (“The historical roots of our ecologic crisis,” Science 155: 1203-1207, 1967.) Habitats of wildlife and the natural environments God created were protected, and we have to prepare a Noah's Ark to save all creation living on the earth. To solve the impending global environmental crises, we have to establish a Christian world view to create a sustainable society.

By Sangjae Lee

War and Peace

2009-04-02T07:18:00.000-07:00

Ethics of War and Peace

As a former refugee of the First Gulf war and a Veteran I must say “There is no victor in War”. The calamity and suffering that War brings to both sides is far greater in magnitude than its merits. With the ongoing Global War on terrorism and an enemy not clearly defined there have been many ethical dilemmas. For example just defining enemy as combatant or non- combatant has become difficult for the United States. The suicide bombing of the terrorists in a religion where suicide is forbidden is also a topic of debate. These are people who claim to be followers of a peaceful faith and have no respect any human life form. Often times it is heard these terrorists have no ethics or any rules of Engagement like we do, so it is fair game for us to not abide by them either? I tried to do some research based on the assumption that these so called terrorists are Muslims. I have come across numerous instances were there are very well defined rules of engagement in Islam.

Islam’s first Caliph Abu Bakr and the most revered Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said to the war going soldiers, “Neither commit treachery, nor steal from the war booty, nor commit betrayal, nor mutilate(dead bodies), nor kill a young child, or an elderly person, or a woman, nor cut down or burn date-trees, nor cut down a fruit-bearing tree, nor kill a sheep, or a cow, or a camel, except if you need to eat its meat. You will pass by some people, monks, who have secluded themselves in places of worship, so let them do what they dedicated their time for.”[1] This clearly explains the discouragement of indiscriminate killing in Islam. There are numerous strict injunctions against suicide in Islam and they talk about facing hellfire for eternity for a person who commits suicide even in the name of religion.

So, what bounds United States of America as a nation at War where there is separation of Church and State? Again the army field manual and Geneva conventions have certain ethical guidelines to follow in combat. Is it ok for us as a nation of high morals and principals to engage in torture? I will leave that up to you to make that judgment with some stipulations of Article 3 of Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article three states that “(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

I personally feel we should refrain from unethical behavior as we are a world leader and need to lead from the front. Also we want our own captured to be treated in the same humane manner as we treat the people we captured.

[1] Hadith of Prophetic traditions by Imam Malik Ibn Abbas(858)

Is Circumcision viewed as human right preference?

2009-03-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

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.

How Do We Overcome Colorblindness?

2009-03-26T11:14:00.000-07:00

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?

The Human Right to Water for All

2009-03-25T19:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Prejudice and Racism

2009-03-24T19:40:00.000-07:00

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:

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

2009-03-24T18:51:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-23T15:32:00.001-07:00

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?

2009-03-23T15:30:00.001-07:00

Opposing rights in the war on drugs

2009-03-23T15:26:00.000-07:00

Stem Cell Research

2009-03-21T16:23:00.000-07:00

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. <http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-stem-cells10-2009mar10,0,533514.story>

Economic sanctions, who is right?

2009-03-15T19:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Texting?

2009-03-12T03:01:00.001-07:00

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/

Why Is Bernard Madoff Not Locked Up?

2009-03-07T07:25:00.000-08:00

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.

Legal Prostitution

2009-03-05T06:14:00.000-08:00

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.

New Persecutions Done by Christians

2009-02-26T21:33:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, when we were reading Miguel A. De La Torre’s Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins, I audibly gasped when I read the following:

“In the name of Jesus Christ crusades have been launched to exterminate the Muslim ‘infidels’; women seeking autonomy have been burned as witches; indigenous people who refused to bow their knees to God and king were decimated; the kidnapping, rape, and enslavement of Africans were justified; and today, the pauperization of two-thirds of the world’s population is legitimized so that a small minority of the planet can consider itself blessed by God” (De La Torre, p. 24).

It wasn’t the category of events De La Torre listed that made me pause. Of course I knew of these things. What college-educated person could not have? What hit me hard about this quote was the very clear and direct comparison De La Torre made between those horrendous acts of our past and our own current convenient, or “inadvertent,” participation in events that may now, or could very well in the future, cause just as much human suffering as the crusades, the Salem which trials, genocide of Native Americans, or the African slave trade; that is, namely, global warming, third world sweat-shops, oil spills, deforestation, and the like.

Clearly, the crux of De La Torre’s quote is not to reference general atrocities committed by humans against humans; it is to examine the atrocities committed by Christians against humans in the name of Christianity. Further, while we may think that in the 21st Century such large-scale atrocities in the name of Christ have ended, De La Torre wants to remind us that they haven’t.

Many Christians, especially those enrolled at Claremont School of Theology, have their theology in order. They understand that being blessed by God is not a matter of material riches, but instead a matter of the peace, contentment, and pleasure inherent in a close personal relationship with Christ. The product of this peace is a deep desire and commitment to “love thy neighbor” by virtue of direct or indirect action; for example, reduced consumption of material resources, the boycott of products manufactured through inhumane working conditions, or the promotion of renewable resources.

I, however, happen to come from a Non-Denominational Christian tradition that often dips into what could easily be termed “prosperity teaching” – the notion that if you give (money, usually), God will bless you hundred-fold. This theology within the Non-Denominational context can, and has often led to, exactly what De La Torre describes in his quote regarding “the pauperization of two-thirds of the world’s population.” As Americans, we live in a country whose very prosperity was gained at the cost of other human beings; to subscribe to a theology that states that as American Christians we live at an unprecedented level of comfort and convenience because of our devotion to God is horribly misguided.

Some answers regarding the alleviation of this situation can be found in a renewed hermeneutics within some church contexts (Non-Denominational being just one). As Richard Amesbury and George N. Newlands state in Faith and Human Rights: Christianity and the Global Struggle for Human Dignity:

“We argue that while faith has much of value to contribute here, the world’s religions (including Christianity) will require vigilant hermeneutical reappraisal and critical retrieval if they are to function as genuine partners in the global struggle for human dignity” (Amesbury and Newland, xi).

Obviously, this renewed hermeneutic requires that we see all humanity – rich or poor, American or non-American, Christian or non-Christian – as precious and worth serving and nurturing. One such hermeneutic is offered by Catherine Mowry LaCugna in her book Freeing Theology.

While focusing specifically on a feminist theology, LaCugna’s doctrine of God proves useful for all of humanity. Stressing that God is equal with Christ in the Trinity, and therefore no hierarchy exists within our communion with God, all people, “Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female” (Galatians 3:28), are equal (and valuable) in the sight of God. As LaCugna writes,

“The life of Jesus Christ is at odds with the sexist theology of complementarity, the racist theology of white superiority, the clerical theology of cultic privilege, the political theology of exploitation and economic injustice, and the patriarchal theology of male dominance and control” (LaCugna, p.99).

In summary, those American Christians who subscribe to the notion that as Americans we have been, or will be, blessed because of our devotion to God need to recognize the imbalance that has occurred due to our own greed and gain a new theology that stresses the reality that when we have, someone else “has not,” and when someone “has not” we should share in their pain and work to alleviate it; otherwise, we are doing little else than repeating the worst mistakes of our Christian history.

Which Side is Right?

2009-02-23T19:10:00.000-08:00

by Sharon Mann

Israel? Palestine? Neither? Both?

I cannot be the friend of the Israeli, IF I cannot be the friend of the Palestinian. I cannot be the friend to the Palestinian, IF I cannot be the friend to the Israeli. Holding them both and striving to understand their issues makes me realize both have a place in the world.

When traveling in the West Bank a little more than a year ago, what I gained was a perspective of how precious the land is to everyone. The class I traveled with and those I learned from included Arch Bishop Elias Chacour with whom we spent an afternoon studying the issues of the people of Galilee. “This land, this place they arguing over is the home to people”. He went on to describe they are moms, dads, grandmothers, and brothers and sisters and daughters. People, going to the school to work, to the grocery, to the library and to the doctor or to the nurse.

Before you can decide who is right we must look at the argument.

I share with you an email that was forwarded to me from a member in the faith community where I serve. Benjamin Netanyahu, recently elected Prime Minister of Israel, gave an interview and was asked about Israel's occupation of Arab lands entitled, "Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict."

Here are overlooked “facts” in the current circulation concerning the Middle East situation. These were compiled by an unidentified Christian university professor from BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY. I have added validation from archived research materials, from various texts of former President Carter and his library where I served a full year as an intern, and WE Belong to the Land by Arch Bishop Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Israeli living for peace and reconciliation. Eye witness to 1947-48 the November 29, 1947 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 and the Diaspora that ensued in Palestine with Israel.
The numbered items are statements from the circulated email and the italicized comments the statements which are reconciled with data from the above mentioned sources. “It's our land”...By: Benjamin Netanyahu

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 Before Common Era (BCE), Two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

3. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more than 22 years.

4. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

5. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanah, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

6. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.1870 7,000 Jews in Palestine (2% of population). Large- Scale Zionist (a traditional faith focus) immigration begins in early 20 CE.

1930-46 Jews flee Nazis seek haven in Palestine and all over the world. Land ownership is 92% Palestinian, 8% Jewish. Zionist (a traditional belief focus) forces expel 750,000+ Palestinians or approximately 75% of the population from their homes. Six months into the expulsion Israel declares independence. In 1947 Britain allows the U.N. to decide what to do about Palestine, which is partitioned into Jewish, Arab, and International areas (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) 55% of the Territory is allocated to the Jewish state. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are now independent States.

7. (continued) Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

Britain, in 1948 mandated Israel over Palestine and declared Israel’s independence as a nation. Arab armies attacked and Israel prevailed. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 establishes a conciliation commission and asserts that refugees wishing to return to their homes AND live in PEACE be allowed to do so, that compensation be paid to others, and that free access to the holy places are assured.

8. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and program.

9. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

10. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey

11. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

12. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
1967 Israel occupies ALL remaining Palestinian lands in Six-Day War. The Occupation has continued for 40+ years.

Was U.N General Assembly Resolution 194 in the above situation honored? (1988)

13. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

14. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

15. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

16. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

17. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

18. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. (During the class trip we were denied access to the Dome of the Rock by Israeli soldiers, our guide was Palestinian, 2008)

Six months later, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 is passed, confirming the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force and calling for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories, the right of all states in the region to live in peace within secure and recognized borders, and a just solution to the refugee problem.

Palestinian resistance continues, mostly nonviolent, sometimes violent (sadly first suicide bombing occurred in 1994). From that time until now Jews worldwide are invited by Israel to live on the refugees’ land solely on the basis of their religious belief / way of life and their ethnicity.

The data supports many of these claims and refutes others. Research for yourself. When looking at the facts it is important to know the source. Some is easily verified. Credible websites such as Amnesty International, http://www.amnesty.org/, UN OCHA, www.reliefweb.int/hic-opt are both good sites to begin your search for what is RIGHT!

So what is the bottom line?

I believe we must hold both sides of this issue. Why? On a sunny January afternoon 2008, standing on a top floor office overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, Arch Bishop Chacour recounted his story in a clear voice. As a 5-year old boy he watched how the soldiers came to take his father and brothers away from their home. Later, he and his mother and sisters left their olive groves and their home in Gush to live as refugees for the rest of their lives. Why? Ethnicity, religion, skin color.

Which side is RIGHT? BOTH? NEITHER? We must hold both sides for you cannot be a friend to one without being a friend to the other.

Faith and Politics from a Targeted Perspective

2009-02-23T12:19:00.000-08:00

Jonathan Visitacion

As I was sitting in our Christian Ethics class last week, I was mesmerized by the dialogue pertaining to the notion that faith and politics should be separated. We used the example of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same sex marriages, and the role of the Christian and/or church. What was hard for me to swallow was the framework of the argument, as to Christians being the aggressors of politics.

I have always assumed that Christian communities are chain reacting targets of the political process, where both republicans and democrats are fighting for the Christian vote. If you can get a leader of a particular Christian community, you may be able to get the vote of the entire Christian community associated with him/her. That is not to say that churches do not play an active political role; almost every church denomination has lobbyist group working at the state and federal level. However, like any community, if there are members of a particular group who acts on a belief of the general community, it may be likely that everybody in that community will believe the same thing and do the same action themselves.

Advertisements for/against Proposition 8 targeted religious groups, which created a fiery dialogue throughout every denomination of every faith. You could not go anywhere without someone asking, “Should gay people have the right to having a marriage recognized by the state?” How could you be religious and NOT answer that question? Whether or not the proposition was founded on religious grounds, “religious beliefs on homosexuality” became a tactical strategy by those endorsing/opposing the state amendment because it could reach out to the largest communities.

How does this actually change the influence of faith and politics? A nation founded on the separation of church and state is still subject to the influence of a majority vote from Christian communities. However, Christians have this relationship of belief and action – that it is inherent to act Christian if you believe you are Christian. Christianity has been forming the last 2000 years through rebellion, martyrdom, colonialism, evangelism, revolutions, protest marches, relief work, etc…it seems that a democratic process would be a walk in the park. Trying to unpack a book written by John B. Cobb called Reclaiming the church, the commitment of the majority of Christians in today’s society has been reduced to tithing; even voter-influencing is not permitted by the church or else they lose their non-profit status. However the church stands in the forefront of social morals and ethics and acts upon them as well, even if it does show in the political arena.

Does that mean the outcome for Proposition 8 was just? I remember going to church the Sunday before the election, and the reverend gave a sermon on Proposition 8, and explained the stance of the United Methodist Church, which was literally two arguments for and against homosexuality (which can be found in the UMC’s Book of Discipline but cannot reference where). I remember that the reverend told the church that the two statements were distant from each other in an effort to symbolize the time and culture that they should be read when taken into action. In other words, both arguments can be right and wrong, it just depends where and when you read those arguments.

Could it be that the outcome of Proposition 8 was just a sign of the times? Are Californians just not ready for same-sex marriages as they thought they were? I recently took a world religions class that required a site visit at a Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic houses of worship, as well as listening to a religious leader associated with each. Almost everyone of those religious leaders were asked a question pertaining to Proposition 8, and almost every leader said they would be willing to marry a gay couple, but thought that their congregation was not ready to accept it. I may not agree with the ruling of Proposition 8, but I believe that it was a sign of our society; our state is not as ready as they thought they were for a marriage between homosexual couples. I may not understand how it got onto the voting ballot, but it did and people voted the way they wanted.

If the outcome of Proposition 8 were to symbolize the religious stance/influence from the people, it definitely shows that we are not ready to be open with same-sex marriages just yet. Not only do I believe this, whoever wrote this proposition must have believed this and deliberately called it to the people’s attention to make a decision, and used religion as a means of doing so.

Human Clone

2009-02-18T15:17:00.000-08:00

Sunghwan Park

When I was young, I was a big fan of science fiction films because they showed me totally different, new, and novel worlds involving things like robots, aliens and their crafts, and cloned persons. There was a movie, Blade Runner, about the human clone. In this movie, scientists successfully create a human clone called a “replicant” through an improvement of genetic technology. The replicants are made for certain objections: some are for fighting battles, some are for just sexual pleasure, and so forth. But these replicants have a very short lifespan, just four-years, because scientists don’t want them to develop emotions and a desire for independence. Meanwhile, four replicants realize this and try to expand their lives, and then, the scientists who created the replicants employ “Blade Runner” to eliminate them. What was interesting was that they used the expression of “retirement” instead of “execution” when Blade Runner killed the human clones.

Of course, this is science fiction, but it is obvious that we are getting closer to this situation with advancements in genetic technology. Already some scientists have succeeded in reproducing animals. The most famous one is Dolly, the sheep which was the first mammal to be cloned in 1996. Current geneticists have been focused on the possibility of human cloning. The movie is closer to as reality every day.

Most countries and religions, however, oppose human cloning for some ethical reasons. Most countries, therefore, impose restrictions on human cloning with the law. So, what is the human cloning and what are the problems of that? Cloning refers to reproducing an individual to have the exact same genetic components as another individual, animal, or plant. In other words, human cloning is to reproduce identical twins artificially in the lab.

Those who support human cloning insist that human clones will have a very positive influence on all humankind. According to them, human cloning will allow mankind to cure incurable disease and to extend their lifespan which is one of the biggest desires. Also, human cloning can give hope to married couples who cannot have children.

Nevertheless, most people stand against it, and I am also one of those. Of course, human cloning experiments may help people escape from the suffering of watching a loved one die. This would be what we all want. In this sense, human cloning may be able to be accepted by Utilitarianism which pursues happiness for all.

I think, however, human cloning experiments are very inhuman and dangerous acts.

When people create something, they have some purpose for it. This means that when scientists produce a human clone, they have some chief aims for the human clone. Human clones can be used for wars or pleasure or medicine. That is human clone would be degraded and be just a means to an end. In this process, human clones also could be produced in quantity according to use, and in the end, it would compromise the dignity of human life. Human cloning would certainly cause some serious unethical conduct. In addition, Christian ethics understand the human being as a creature of God with freedom. Therefore, an act to manipulate a human’s freedom (human clone) is wrong not only morally, but also religiously.

Moreover, human cloning will bring about social and religious confusion. Socially, human beings have a blood relation with their biological parents. Blood ties and families are the fundamental elements that constitute society. And then, religiously, people have a relationship with God as God’s creature. Human clones, however, will have nothing to do with biological parents or God since their parents (?) or creator would be the scientists. I, thus, strongly insist that human cloning experiments must be stopped.

Ethics in ministry settings

2009-02-17T18:36:00.000-08:00

Judy Green-Davis

At my church, when we were going through the educational process to become open and affirming (totally inclusive), we made a videotape in which church members who were gay, parents of gay children, and straight members talked about their lives and faith. Unfortunately, this video (which was very well done and has been used in many local UCC churches) caused the dissolution of a family. One woman came out to the congregation as gay in the video. Her parents (who knew she was a lesbian) were humiliated because now everyone knew she was a lesbian. They left the church and now are distant from their daughter.

So here is a complicated ethical issue. First, the church was working to become open and inclusive. Being open and affirming became a normative belief (although at the time, it was not so; it was a relative belief). Her decision to be open about her life and her faith obviously hurt other people. It was a normative belief for her but, obviously not for her parents who have never welcomed one of her partners into their home. For the congregation, the separation was a great sadness and people disagreed about how all of this should have been handled within the family.

What should a pastor do in such a situation? Is there a role for the pastor of the church in the family problems—potentially uninvited and unwelcomed? How should pastors deal with an ethical issue such as this?

Jonestown aftermath

2009-02-17T18:35:00.000-08:00

Judy Green-Davis

I regularly read Disciples World, the monthly publication of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the sister denomination to mine, United Church of Christ. In the November issue, the cover articles are about the Jonestown Massacres. For those of you too young to remember, thirty years ago, Rev. James Jones, an ordained minister of the Disciples, led a congregation of about 1,000 people into a jungle outpost in Guyana, South America. There, what began as a utopia of a diverse, interracial congregation dedicated to serving the poor, homeless, and those in need of medical care became a nightmare in which over 900 people died in a “revolutionary suicide” to use Jones’ term by purposely (and some against their will) ingesting poisoned Kool-Aid.

There have been many ethical questions that have faced the denomination in the aftermath of this terrible tragedy. And those of us who are old enough to remember the awful incident will probably never be able to rid our retinas of the photos of the dead lying together, holding each other.

Like my denomination, the Disciples have no hierarchy, no bishop, or pope to oversee individual congregations. Jesus is the head of the church. A local church can call anyone to be their pastor and the Disciples have no authority to remove such a pastor…even one not ordained by the Disciples.

The Jonestown situation was very complex. There were prominent politicians involved, there was the actual substantial service to the poor by the congregation, and there were reports of increasing bizarre behavior by Rev. Jim Jones. But the denomination was unable to confront Jones with the issues because he was in South America. The denomination’s rules require a pastor to review the charges against him/her prior to being held in discussion about the issues. Jones was not coming back to the California/Nevada regional conference. Therefore, no charges were ever discussed.

I think the outcome of this whole dreadful story is interesting. In this issue, the Disciples recognize that their ideal of congregational freedom was at the root of the tragedy. Yet, they met afterward and decided not to change their policies. They still have no way to police ministers that go over the edge. And the same is true in my own denomination. The Disciples acknowledge in this issue of Disciples World that the same thing could happen again. I suppose it could in my own denomination.

So the ethical issue becomes, when does a nominative belief (congregational liberty) become potentially hurtful? Does the denomination curtail a nominative belief in order to prevent an outlaw relational belief by a rogue pastor? How does a denomination (which is always diverse) make a decision about a normative belief that is so potentially risky and that has proven to be disastrous?

Readers of the issue will assuredly register their ethic opinions in the December issue. What is your opinion?

Christian Century

2009-02-17T06:30:00.000-08:00

Judy Green-Davis

I have never posted to a blog and don’t normally even read blogs. But what I do read is the weekly magazine “Christian Century.” In the Jan. 27, 2009 issue, there is an article by Barbara Brown Taylor who is wrestling with questions of theology and ethics. You might want to go on line to read the text in full; there’s good fodder there for a sermon.

Taylor quotes Duke ethicist Stanley Hauerwas who says, “most Christians are too spiritual in the practice of their faith. Christianity ‘is not a set of beliefs or doctrines one believes in order to be a good Christian but rather Christianity is to have one’s body shaped, one’s habits determined, in such a way that the worship of God is unavoidable.’” Taylor’s point is that doctrines must “take on flesh.” She believes that faith has to include our daily life, our sensual activities, and our ordinariness to be true. She asserts that Hauerwas is asking us if “whether there is anything besides the body that can be sanctified.” And don’t you think that’s why the Bible focuses so much on daily activities—in the kitchen, the garden, the street, among the people, at the threshing floor, on the road? We don’t read about God holding a board meeting or Jesus consulting with CEOs. We read about real life, real people, and real situations.

Whew! Taylor brings it down to brass tacks when she quotes Daniel Berrigan (and for sure I’m going to use this quote in a sermon one day) who says, “It all comes down to this: Whose flesh are you touching and why? Whose flesh are you recoiling from and why? Whose flesh are you burning and why?”

Doesn’t this embody the questions we’ve been asked to think about in our first few classes….who’s benefiting, who’s losing, and where are you coming from on this argument? I think Berrigan’s comments are a good litmus test for ethics. Taylor and Hauerwas give us a good grounding for theology—the spiritual is not enough, the real must be included. God is at the molecular level in our lives; our theology has to go to our very cells to be true (or as Hauerwas says, so that the worship of God is unavoidable.” Selah.

Strict Father Morality and Conservative Christianity

2009-02-11T17:44:00.000-08:00

Seth Schoen

I thought it would be a good idea to use this posting as an opportunity to present some preliminary ideas for my final paper and hopefully receive some feedback.

Recently I have been reading Moral Politics by George Lakoff [1]. His basic premise is that the disparity between liberal and conservative worldviews can be attributed to subconscious metaphors that provide the basis for people’s moral thinking. Furthermore, these metaphors serve as the governing principle for people’s decisions. Examining these metaphors, therefore, will lead to an understanding of the assumptions people have when making moral decisions. Lakoff shows that strict father morality is the undergirding principle that much of conservative Christianity subscribes to. Furthermore, he points out that the rhetoric of biblical authority and God’s law as used today is nothing more than the projection of strict father morality onto God. I intend to show how this governing metaphor has drastic implications for human rights and equality.

I will focus primarily on Lakoff’s description of strict father morality which he claims is the underlying metaphor governing conservative ideology. It should be noted that Lakoff is a cognitive scientist and his research focuses primarily on Radial Categories which cannot be defined by a list of properties shared by all members of the category. Instead, “they are characterized by variations on a central model.”[2] What this means is that strict father morality is a central category and not all who identify as conservative will fall strictly into this category but will derive their tenets based upon this central category. There will be many variations on the central model and though the process is complex these variations are systematically derived from the central model. “The theory of radial categories claims that variations should be systematic in a certain way, determined by the application of parameters of variation to the central model.”[3]

Lakoff points out that strict father morality is comprised of several metaphors which are not unique to it. These metaphors are found in other cultures throughout the world. It is the prioritization and organization of these metaphors that yield the strict father morality system.

Lakoff also shows that strict father morality functions at a subconscious level and is not readily known by its adherents. Thus, the decisions and moral outlook based on the metaphors that comprise the strict father system are seen as common sense and part of the natural order.

My hypothesis is that within a Christian framework this system of morality is viewed as originating from God and seen as a divine command. Thus, God becomes the ultimate enforcer of a morality that has drastic consequences for social and economic justice. In my opinion, creating an awareness of the underlying systems of morality will help to create a plurality of options for change as well as downplay absolutism and radical dualism. In addition, if we can understand how the mind categorizes it will help alleviate the projection of cognitive creations onto God or nature, and hopefully bring about the recognition that ultimate claims are spurious.

[1] George Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think (2^nd ed.; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002).

[2] Lakoff, Moral Politics, 8.

[3] Lakoff, Moral Politics, 285.

Vegetarianism

2009-02-04T22:49:00.000-08:00

Sinnamon Wolfe

This morning I had blood drawn at the doctor’s office. I am rather eager to learn the results, especially concerning my red blood cell count because lately I have been dealing with anemia. I am iron deficient; most likely because of my vegetarian diet. This has been frustrating because it’s affecting my immune system. I keep getting sick. So why, when my health is being affected negatively do I continue to choose to be a vegetarian? This is not an easy choice for me. It is something I consciously choose everyday and for me it is very much an ethical choice, which is why I chose to focus on it for my blog topic.

To begin I would like to describe my vegetarian diet. I, according to many, would not be a true vegetarian. I mainly am a lacto-ovo-pescatarian. I eat dairy, eggs, and fish. However, lately, due to my struggle with anemia I have been including some high iron meat to my diet. Technically I would be considered a “flexitarian”, a person who mainly eats vegetarian but sometimes eats meat. Although I like this word I choose to use vegetarian so that people know not to feed me meat.

I decided to become a vegetarian because I thought it was time to admit that the conditions the animals go through are wrong. I had known for sometime that animals raised for meat have horrible living conditions. I don’t have room to go into descriptions of the conditions but if you want to go to PETA’s website (http://www.peta.org/) they have plenty of information and even scaring videos. I chose to be vegetarian because I did not want to financially support a system that tortures animals. I do not consider it ethical that creatures that feel pain should suffer like that nor is it ethical that I participate, through consumption, in that treatment.

The reason why I wanted to blog about this is not because I am a card carrying PETA member who is trying proselytize her classmates but that I want this ethical choice of mine to be taken seriously as an ethical choice. Vegetarianism is constantly dismissed. Often times when I simply state I am a vegetarian people will mock me and go on about how much they love eating meat and how they want to go out that very moment and get a bunch of meat as if they wish to counteract my vegetarianism by consuming even more meat. This happened to me several times in undergrad in an ethics class where we were discussing animal rights.

A more subtle dismissal is when it is merely regarded as a lifestyle choice. As if the reason I am a vegetarian is purely arbitrary similar to a choice to wear sandals over high heals and not based on values. It ignores the fact that is my response to the suffering of those on the margins of society. Can I even say that animals are members of society? Many consider society human and therefore exclude the other creatures we share this planet with. In addition to that my choice is dismissed as having nothing to do with Christianity. What I consider my response to “the imprisoned” and to “the least of these” is considered either as superfluous to Christian values and/or in direct contraction to command to “dominate” in Genesis and therefore unchristian. An ethical choice for me, which has lead to a very serious life change, is regarded by many as unimportant, unethical and even a nuisance by having to provide vegetarian meal options.

These dismissals I have experienced tell me that many do not consider animal rights an ethical issue. Or, if it is it should be secondary to human needs. Which brings me to a new reason why I am vegetarian. I have learned since making the original choice that eating meat, especially red meat, contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Here is an article that offers more information than I can give right now: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15/opinion/ed-methane15. Apparently livestock emissions pose a much greater threat to the environment than all cars, trains, and planes. Add onto that the damage created to the environment by deforestation and the energy needed to create crops to feed livestock and we have a serious environmental problem. Therefore, our consumption of meat isn’t just an arbitrary concern for animal lovers such as myself but rather the future of our planet and the future of humanity itself are at stake.

All of that being said, I don’t think the solution is for everyone to become vegetarian. I think more people should become vegetarian but I don’t think it’s for everybody. As I stated earlier, I am considered more of a flexitarian than a true vegetarian. I do struggle with continuing to not eat meat. I am very concerned about my health so in addition to iron supplements I will eat some meat. I also struggle with my own challenges. I stated that I consider it unethical to participate in the suffering of other being, however, I still eat eggs, dairy and fish. The chickens that lay the eggs I eat suffer in terrible conditions along with the ones that are used for meat. If I purchase eggs for myself I make sure they are at least cage free if not free range and organic; however I also eat eggs at restaurants where the eggs most likely aren’t cage free. I also have a challenge to consume less dairy products. I have switched to organic milk but my cheese isn’t always organic and either way the cattle emissions still affection the environment. Even consuming fish has its environmental impact. We are vastly depleting our oceans’ fish supplies and affecting the environment that way. If I were to push myself to follow my values strictly I would probably become vegan. But in addition to valuing the sustainability of the environment, I am interesting in the sustainability of human persons. I struggle with being a vegetarian. My health and my social life are affected greatly. All of this can wear on a person. Therefore I think it is important that we lesson how much we consume rather than cut meat and animal products out all together.

P.S. For those who are Mac users I found I could not paste into the blog using Safari. I don't know if you can use Mozilla but just know Safari does not work.

Welcome

2009-02-03T07:17:00.000-08:00

This is the class blog for Christian Traditions - Ethics.

The following is an excerpt from the class syllabus and relates to the blog:

In addition to a final paper (see below) you will have a choice between two assignments focused on engaging non-academic audiences. Those who opt for the former will write (and ideally give) a sermon on an ethics-related theme. Those who opt for the latter will write an original essay for the class blog.

In addition, everyone (irrespective of their choice of assignments) will also be expected to (a) read all of the other blog entries posted each week; and (b) to reply to at least 10 of these.

Those who wish to write a sermon should consult with me on guidelines. Instructions for blogging are as follows:

Your original entry (if you select option 2) should be no fewer than 500 and no greater than 1000 words in length. Response postings can be as long or as short as you desire. I would suggest composing each entry in Word (or a similar program), then cutting and pasting onto the blog. Be sure to save copies in Word for yourself, in case technical problems arise when posting. These are minimum requirements that all students are expected to satisfy. However, you are permitted – and indeed encouraged – to participate more frequently. This will help raise your grade for this part of the course.

Your job is to offer intelligent, informed analysis of a current issue in well crafted prose. A good model (and source of interesting religion analysis) is the website "http://religiondispatches.org". These postings will be graded and should be well researched, organized, edited, and proofread. If (in my judgment) a posting needs editing or rethinking, or if it is offensive, I will take it down and ask you to revise it. Only students registered for the course and I will be able to post entries, but the blog will be accessible to everyone online, and anyone is free to respond to what we have posted.

A good entry will involve your own viewpoint, without simply stating an undefended opinion. A good reply will engage with an earlier entry, without simply repeating what was said already: remember that a genuine conversation develops over time. Keep in mind that although it is fine to disagree with what someone else has said, it is important to do so in a way that is polite and constructive. If someone says something that makes you angry, pause and take a breath before firing off a reply! Remember that once you post an entry, it will no longer be editable and will be visible to everyone.

Although the blog can be accessed virtually anywhere, it is worth remembering that computer labs are available at CST. For technical assistance, contact CST Information Technology at computersupport@cst.edu or IThelp@cst.edu.

Enjoy!