Taking a Position

The article that I read can be found here
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=religionandbelief

The main issue presented in this article is the right of atheists in the military to have humanist/atheist chaplains appointed to them as christian, muslim, Buddhist, jewish and other religiously affiliated people in the military have their own chaplains appointed to them. Some would argue that atheism is a lack of faith and therefore desiring a religious leader of some sort for that group of people is ridiculous. Others would argue that atheists need spiritual and mental guidance just like everyone else and just because they don't believe in a god or are agnostic doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same opportunities and resources available to them as the religious members of the military.

I have to admit, when I first started reading this article and saw that atheist and agnostic members of the military were pushing to have their own chaplain of sorts, I laughed. If you take it at face value, it does seem to be a pretty ridiculous and contradictory request. However, after reading the rest of the article I’d have to say that I think it’s a matter of equality and acceptance for the atheists and agnostics of the military to have some sort of spiritual counselor appointed to them. In my opinion, I believe all people need spiritual guidance of some sort. Just because one seeks out spiritual guidance doesn’t mean they have to believe in God or gods or anything, I feel that it’s just part of the human condition. It’s important that the atheists and agnostics have their own chaplain so that they don’t feel that they have to go to someone meant for other religious groups and feel pressured into or out of different types of spiritual lifestyles.

Having a chaplain of their own might validate the atheist or agnostic point of view and help level the playing field between ‘spiritual’ and ‘non-spiritual’ people. Denying agnostic and atheists their own chaplain can be seen as promoting religion in some way. Some would argue that promoting religion is good, but I say that all people of all different types of faiths (or lack thereof) should feel comfortable expressing themselves and not feel as if their own government is lifting one way of life above all others (then again, that’s another story altogether).
“I support the idea that religious soldiers need support from religious chaplains, but there has to be a line between supporting religious soldiers and promoting religion.”

The military can keep their chaplains and keep supporting troops spiritually and avoid promoting specific religions or religion in itself if they add humanist chaplains or consolers to their staff. Atheists and agnostics should have their of chaplains and humanist consolers appointed for the sake of equality in providing our troops with mental, spiritual and emotional support.

For Independent assignment: Taking a Position, I decided to look deeper into a reading we studied and discussed in class. A section from "Religions of America" by Leo Rosten is titled "What is a Mormon?" and the title pretty much speaks for its content.

I chose this reading because of an earlier essay question that sparked my thoughts. The essay question asked which type of Judaism would be the best fit for a person living in America. Then my mind took off. As the world modernizes, and world wide beliefs start to transform, I started to think what religion would be the best fit for the constantly changing world. After reading this section I took a position that being a Mormon in the world, especially America, would be quite difficult. Mormon is a nickname for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and like other religions, they have rules to live by... But in my eyes rules that are more difficult to live by.

In the reading there were a few sections that caught my eye. A health code known as the "Word of Wisdom" does not allow the use of tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and "hot drinks." Now I can see why they would disapprove Mormons from tobacco use and alcohol because those are two potentially dangerous things. But hot drinks? in quotations the reading says: Specifically Tea and Coffee, and that seems a little bit ridiculous. Tea and Coffee, even hot chocolate, are three very popular drinks and avoiding them may not be possible. Another section read that they highly do not support Birth Control. In Mormon communities the church has always pushed for large families. The absence of birth control could result in diseases and on a whole different topic, teen pregnancy. Mormons do not believe in pre-marital sex whatsoever. I believe Mormon kids and adults should not be looked down upon for the use of birth control or pre-marital sex. Homosexuality is an equally grievous sin as adultery and in a world where homosexuality is becoming equal to heterosexuality, being a mormon would not be best.

My issue is about whether or not parents should be able to withhold medical treatment from their children because of religions beliefs. The two most prominent that I read about were Christian Scientists, in “Challenging medical authority”, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, in “Jehovah's Witness Kid Dies After Refusing Medical Treatment” on npr. I chose this issue because of how much it bothers me that people blindly follow something instead of trusting a well grounded idea that has been repeated hundreds of times and worked.

A quick background of the situation comes from the stories of two children that died because they were withheld any sort of medical treatment. Robyn, the two year old son of Christian scientist parents, began experience abdominal pain after eating dinner one night. The following day he was brought to the church, where the problem was identified and he was brought home to be prayed for. He died 5 days later from a intestinal blockage which could have easily been fixed by surgery. The issue brought up in the NPR article, was that a 14-year old boy was put into the custody of his aunt who was a Jehovah’s Witness. The boy had leukemia, and his aunt refused to allow him to receive blood transfusions which was essentially a death sentence. The boy died before the problem could be worked out legally. The NPR article also stated that the state has the right to intervene if refusing medical treatment would put the child in serious danger.

As I see it, it is not excusable to allow a child to die because his or her parents are incapable of seeing the fact that what they are doing isn’t helping. Psychological studies have been done to show that some people will believe that what they have control over something, even when their actions are completely independent from the outcomes. As long as their is little reputable and reliable information that any form of praying or religious operation can actually help someone be cured of a certain disease, I would not trust a parent being allowed to make a decision as too what is the best way to treat their child. Doctors have been trained for years to ensure that their patients survive, and they have a marvelous track record. There is a large amount of evidence that certain medical procedures are statistically significant at saving people. When it comes to ensuring the life of a child, the decision should be made by someone who can rationally understand the situation. There is of course situations where input from the parents and personal life style choices may be important, but I am only looking at the situations where the fact that medical treatment was withheld was easily avoidable without any sort of adverse effects.

This country, was however based upon the principle of having many freedoms, one of the most important being the freedom of religion. An adult who freely chooses to not accept any sort of medical treatment is making his own conscious decision that he would rather keep his own beliefs and die. If the child is capable of making his own rational decision, I am not exactly sure what age that would be, then he should be able to do what ever he feels necessary to maintain his own beliefs. I do however belief that most children will blindly follow their parents belief system unless they are given a legitimate reason to doubt it. I would think it would be very hard to draw that line between someone that understands what they believes or just believes what they are supposed to believe. It is unfortunate, but the only thing that can legally be done is too believe what they say.

the article where I found my information can be found here....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-03-21-quran-burning-florida_N.htm
IA #4: TAKING A POSITION
For my taking a position on a controversial religion issue in todays news I decided to focus on the pastor in Florida who found it a good idea to burn the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. For me personally I would have never even thought to do such a thing. It is very disrespectful to the Islamic religion, not only disrespecting the innocent people involved in that religion but also disrespectful for the people of early decades who built the ideas of the Islamic religion and all that it stands for. Now that is just my personal opinion. From this article I learned that it almost goes both ways. The pastor who thought this to be a good idea was Terry Jones who said that on his facebook page he got over 700 hits saying burn the Quran. Now he is getting his 15 minutes of fame that many people hope he is satisfied with because they do not want another reason to give him any more minutes which results in disrespect of another religion. It did state in the article that Terry Jones plans on hosting a protest of the Quran, Shariah law and "radical Islam," and he has scheduled an April event in front of an Islamic center in Dearborn, Michigan. Yes 9/11 will forever be remembered as a tragic day around the world and people want justice and even revenge, we do not want to cause an upset resulting in death or outrage in the American people. In order to get peace one needs to give peace, not provoke the people who we are wishing to receive peace from. With every radical action taken toward a religion controversy will be started and different people will believe different things, to end this controversy completely would be near impossible because of how different everyone think but it is definitely something the world can work toward and would be very beneficial to the world as a whole.

For my Taking a Position article I decided to take a look into how faith plays a factor after a natural disaster such as a tornado, in Alabama. My article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110515/us_nm/us_tornado_victims;_ylt=AtSSXIklMv_eub6TWKeknTg7Xs8F;_ylu=X3oDMTJwaXIycWIxBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwNTE1L3VzX3Rvcm5hZG9fdmljdGltcwRwb3MDMjgEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRlX3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDdG9ybmFkb3ZpY3Rp

The title of my article is "Tornado Victims turn to faith in recovery" and the issue I took from this article is the idea of using religion as something to lean on in one's time of need. This tornado in south killed 330 people and damages were estimated up to two billion dollars. Now it may not be in all the victims best interest to hear and get help from certain churches like the Pleasant Grove United Methodist Church, but in my opinion even though these people who are aiding the victims may not have similar religious beliefs I am glad these people are doing what they're doing. In a time of need, having some sort of faith can never hurt anything. There's not a lot of options people can turn to when in a desperate situation, however faith is one of them. Even if you disagree with another persons views on religion, every religion plays helpful option for people in need. Whether it be friend, donations or even a simple prayer, being a part of a religious community will always provide some security if life isn't going your way. Now I'm not saying people have to oblige to everyone else's religious views, but to respect the fact that these citizens may be using religion as a sense of security. I'm glad to see that even in the worst situations like this tornado in the south, people are finding ways to help out and use their religions to keep their hopes up.

The issue that I am writing is about being able to post the Ten Commandments in public schools. Many Americans believe that a part of their personal religious expressions is to pray in school and have the Ten Commandments posted around the courtyards, offices, and hallways. This idea however is walking on thin ice. People of other religions might feel bitter about this notion. Those that aren’t Christian will feel that they have been violated of their freedom of religion.
Christians on the other hand will argue that the United States was broad up as a Christian nation and that it’s founders were all believers of God. However, I think differently in what the Christians believe. I am also a non-Christian and I would not feel comfortable having the Ten Commandments being posted around my school.
The Ten Commandments maybe guidelines to how one lives their live, but the punishments for breaking them seem barbaric. For someone who is unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments, here is a list of them and their punishments.
* I Am The Lord Thy God. This Commandment recognized the sovereignty of the Almighty. Rejection of it was seen as a refusal to acknowledge God's authority. Punishment was death by stoning.
* Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods But Me. Punishment was death by stoning.
* Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord Thy God In Vain. Punishment was death by stoning.
* Remember The Sabbath Day To Keep It Holy. Punishment was death by stoning.
* Honor Thy Father And Thy Mother Punishment was death by strangulation.
* Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder Punishment was death by decapitation.
* Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Punishment was death by strangulation.
* Thou Shalt Not Steal. Punishment was death by strangulation.
* Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor Punishment was death by stoning.
* Thou Shalt Not Covet. Punishment was death by strangulation.
Most rules from the Ten Commandments seem reasonable and realistic like; Thou shalt not steal or Thou shalt not commit murder, but to an extent it is wrong to be posting these and it’s consequences (from the bible) to such young people. We have to take into consideration that public schools enroll students of all race, religion, gender, etc. and many of those children will be obligated to follow a Christian commandment that they don’t believe in.

An article that i read can be found here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200011/ai_n8920965/

Nick Frecentese

For my Taking a Position assignment I chose to write about my opinion on a particularly interesting article that we glanced over in class one day. The article is titled: I. The Gay Dilemma and was published in Newsweek on May 6, 2002. The reason that I chose to discuss this article in particular is because when reading it in class I was so interested in the concept and statistics presented. I think that I was more interested in what was presented in this than I have been in any article we have read in World Religions to date. As a member (semi-practicing) of the Catholic Church I was very intrigued with the issue presented in this article. It brought a completely new dilemma to my eyes that I had never seen or noticed before in the Church. To be completely honest, I have some problems with the Church and how it is run so I quite enjoy any ammunition against it including what is presented in this article. Lastly, I thought it to be very interesting that the Church turns a a blind eye to this problem.

The issue that is focused on in this article is that of the amount of homosexual priests currently active in the Catholic Church. According to the article, "The best guess is that between 35 and 50 percent of Roman Catholic priests are homosexual." Coming from my own experience, I have gone to masses preformed by six different priests in the last six years, so according to this statistic, either 2 or 3 of these were homosexual. It just blows my mind that the Church can preach so openly against gay marriage when it has so many of the members it is shunning right under its own nose. I think that if the Roman Catholic Church knows how many of their ordained priests are gay that they should refine their rules for gay marriage. It would be illogical to try and kick out every homosexual priest because then the church would be unable to function with so many of its servants gone. Lastly, I do not support the Church's stance on gay marriage in the first place so I am already opposed to their views and beliefs. This aspect of the Roman Catholic Church needs to be changed...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/us/14muslim.html?ref=islam

I found this article on the NY Times website. It discusses a military effort to investigate two Muslim soldiers on an unfounded claim that they were “plotting to poison fellow soldiers”. The claim apparently came from a relative of a soldier. The military didn’t wait to validate the claim, they immediately placed the soldiers in Barracks arrest, interrogated, and confined them. The specialist soldiers Khalid Lyaacoubi and Yassine Bahammou were recruited for a specific military camp, 09 Lima, that required Arabic speaking soldiers. They were promised higher rank, bonuses, and quick citizenship for their military efforts and work as interpreters. This military effort was supposed to refute the idea that America is at war with Islam. Unfortunately, the outcome was the exact opposite.
The two soldiers went through training camp without a glitch, but shortly after the Fort Hood shootings the poisoning claim was made; it went downhill from there. They were detained, questioned, and ultimately dispensed from the military. One of the soldiers said that while being questioned the interrogator said, “We are at war with Islam. And you are Muslim.”
This certain attitude toward Muslims in America seems too prevalent. These soldiers were supposed to add to the effort to make Islam welcome in the eyes of the Military and the American people, but one false claim led to the demise of these soldiers’ careers and an infringement of their civil rights. A military investigation was conducted after the fact, and big surprise, they found that the soldiers were treated unfairly and were persecuted based on religious beliefs.
I wish the separation of church and state was possible, but the foundation of American ideals and belief is so deeply rooted in religious principle that the idea seems merely naïve. These men shouldn’t have been immediately arrested and detained on the word of a single informer. This wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t Muslim. The Military treated them unjustly because of their religious beliefs. This needs to change.

for my "taking a position" i read an article titled "study cites social tumult in priest scandals" on msnbc. you can read it here: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43079862/). i chose this article because it reminded me of the packets we read in class about gay priests.

recently a study was conducted which explored the nature of the recent sexual abuse crisis in the catholic church, from 1950 to 2010. the study determined that "neither celibacy nor homosexuality [are] to blame" for the crisis. additionally, gay priests are "not significantly more likely to abuse minors" than heterosexual priests.

however the ironic bit is that this study was actually commissioned by the catholic church. bishops paid for a substantial portion of the $1.8 million it cost to do this study. all of the research numbers and information were gathered from the church. and as such, it is pretty likely that this study is at the very least, biased. "the survivors network" [for the abused] goes as far as to describe this report as "garbage in, garbage out."

the article and the accompanying video explain why there was a spike in cases of sexual abuse involving members of the church in the 1960s and 1970s. the reason is basically that they "blame woodstock" and the sexual revolution that took place during those two decades. the report claims that this "deviant behavior" in the church mirrors society's "deviant behavior." it then goes on to say that the priests were not well-trained to deal with these cultural shifts and thus all of the scandals took place. since 1980s, the amount of sexual abuse within the church has dropped significantly.

i don't think this idea of mirroring is a good explanation / reason for what happened. i think what happened has to do with the church and the church only. specifically, i think the problem lies within the power structure of the church: bishops and cardinals are not punished / removed, which essentially gives them absolute power. i think this power ends up corrupting them.

i was really appalled that the article had to say and prove that homosexuality does not equal pedophilia. they had to clearly say that a gay men are usually not pedophiles. i thought that was pretty obvious, but i guess not....?

so finally my position on this is that i think the study is totally inaccurate / flawed in every sense. i think that the catholic church is corrupt and hypocritical in a lot of ways, this study seems to be one of those ways.

-sarah

For my Taking a Position essay, I decided to search for news articles on Christianity. An article I found was about how Christianity facebook sites attract more people and comments than celebrity sites like Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga. The article showed a picture of a facebook page, "Jesus Daily" at which point I decided that I would "read" the facebook page.

I thought I would mention that the person who comes up on the side of the facebook page is a girl who stalked me from Concordia Roseville and who regularly asks me about my favorite Bible verses. She creeps me out, and makes my understanding of religion in general very uncomfortable shall we say...Perhaps this is where my level of irritation with religion begins, or it is my religion hating grandmother. This facebook page is a little upsetting simply because of all the messages about saving peoples' souls. I'm not sure I feel comfortable with others telling me that my life is incomplete without being "saved".

On the other hand, the first status that I see posted by the creator of this facebook page is encouraging followers to pray for hungry children around the world, which is respectable.

In conclusion, I suppose that my "issue" here is religion. It is difficult for me pin point my frustration with religion, but it was how I was raised. I understand that religions all around the world strive for a better world, however I do not enjoy having others religion pressured on me or my civil rights....Sorry if this was offensive in any way but I wasnt sure what else to write for this entry.

For my Taking A Position independent assignment, I chose to read a few articles about the May 21st doomsday that is fast approaching.

The first article can be found here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/may-21st-2011-doomsday-profiting-/story?id=13612172

This article talks about a business that was created by a man, Bart Centre, who says he will take care of peoples pets after the owners have been taken away to the heavenly realms. To this date, he has sold 258 contracts to people ensuring them that he will watch over their pet when they are gone. Despite the fact that this seems slightly cynical in regards to the doomsday, it is said in the article that Centre takes his job very seriously. He checked his animal rescuers credit history and criminal records to make sure they would follow through on their job. I find this article interesting because it really emphasizes to me how faithful people can be in their beliefs, and how easy it is to take advantage of this fact.

The second article can be found here:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/may-21-2011-end-world-judgment-day/story?id=13570426

This article adresses all of the past doomsdays that have failed, and how this May 21st prediction is just another attempt to get some publicity. The first prediction that went awry was Harold Campings prediction of September 6th, 1994. He, however, claims that a few verses in Matthew 24 threw off his calculations, and the real date is May 21st, 2011. The second doomsday that didn't happen was in Mid-September and was created by Edgar Whisenant. Clearly, he was mistaken in his prediction. Jehovahs witnesses felt the world was going to end in 1914, William Miller predicted the world would end around 1843, John Hinkle thought June 9th, 1994 was the date, and Chuck Smith was sure the end would come before 1981. I really liked reading this article because it makes me think about how gullible people of the world can be. Despite the fact that all of these 'doomsdays' have come and gone, people are still getting riled up about another crazy mans prediction that the end is nigh.

The third article I read was:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-20064015-10391705.html

This article is about Harold Camping backing up his new prediction of the end of the world coming on May 21st. He claims that the prediction comes from his 50 year long study of the bible. He says that an earthquake will occur that will make the earthquake in Japan seem like a Sunday School picnic. After this first judgement day, nonbelievers will be given 5 months to get on boar, because the real end of the world is on October 21st. This article was interesting to me because, although he already failed once, Camping is still so sure of his new prediction, and he has spent thousands of his own dollars advertising this judgement day.

This topic is really funny to me. I realize that a judgement day and an earthquake and millions of people dying really isn't that funny, but I'm pretty confident that we don't have to much to worry about. With all of the failed predictions in the past, and the complete lack of reasoning for why this prediction is so much better than the others. I think it will be safe to go out and play a round of golf, followed by a nice dinner, on the 21st.

I came across an article on nytimes.com called "Chinese Christians Rally Around Underground Church." (May 12, 2011) The Christian's of Beijing are currently struggling against the government's persecution of their religion and are fighting for religious freedom. The government's disapproval of Christianity has not stopped them from believing. Underground churches have been operating now for quite awhile, but the government has finally caught on and is cracking down. One particular evangelical Protestant congregation (Shouwang) has had their leaders put under house arrest for over a month now, and not only that, but it's 1,000 other members have been left homeless because of actions of their landlords who were put under pressure by the authorities. Despite the fact that in the past the Shouwang congregation has faced similar issues regarding eviction, and in result come to raise enough money ($4 million) to purchase their own space for the church, the government still did not permit the church to do so. The government claims that they are "[taking] the appropriate measures" to insure "public order and security." A petition (written by Xie Moshan and Li Tianen) was delivered to the National People's Congress on Wednesday and has since then been thrust not only towards the people of Beijing, but also towards Christians in the United States and Canada who feel this is unfair. The petition asks for legal protection of "house churches," or churches which operate outside of the religious system run by the government. The petition is supposed to put pressure on the atheist Communist Party, and also show them that national attention is being paid to their dealings with the issue. The petition calls out the "outdated system of religion management" for the whole crisis. It also predicts that the recent uprisings will lead to "social strife" which is something Chinese leaders definitely want to avoid. In the end, the hope is to "[Put the] people first," and the law ruling the country in a different category.
This article raised the classic battle among church and state. It stood out to me because the issues posed have been addressed, to me at least, time and time again. I feel it's an issue that from my cultural perspective, seems easy to find an answer to. Having had history show me who came out on top, I can't help but feel that the Shouwang congregation will come out on top, with that said, my position, is that I support both the Shouwang congregation, as well as the petition lobbying for their freedom to practice religion. Perhaps this is because for me, as an American, this issue seems age old and being raised with the words "freedom of religion" drilled into my memory, I believe it is in anyone's right to have the same freedoms I was raised with. I don't think it is within any countries best interest to prevent people from believing in what they want to. It isn't within a government's power to determine what a person is and isn't going to believe it, it is only within their power to prevent the public practice of it, but clearly, a government can only try and silence a group for so long before they realize they shouldn't have to hide or stand for being persecuted any longer. What the Chinese government is doing is literally silencing people by locking them up and preventing them from speaking. In my experience, freedom of religion in America has not reaped any major consequences, so I don't see the harm in letting 1,000, or however many people practice a religion that doesn't seem to pose any threat on society as a whole.

Independent Assignment #4: Taking a Position
Arjun Sridhar

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/world/middleeast/16egypt.html?ref=religionandbelief

For this Independent Assignment, I decided I would scroll through the New York Times and see if there would be an article about religious tensions around the world. Immediately, I found a perfect article of the violent tensions between the Muslims and the Coptic Christians in Egypt. For the last couple of months after the revolution, the Muslims and the Coptic Christians have been fighting continuously. In the last couple of months, Muslims and Christians have been engaging in fights that have left many people injured from both sides. Cairo has been on edge and there have been nightlong battles between groups of Coptic Christians and Muslims. Coptic Christians have been angry with the Egyptian police for failing to protect their churches because many Muslim mobs have been setting them on fire. In response to this, many Coptic Christian's have engaged in a sit-in outside the state television building known as Maspero. During this sit-in Muslims started to attack Coptic Christians, which led to more blood shed. Coptic’s and Muslims make up 10% of the population in Egypt and violence has increased ever since the revolution.
I think these tensions are becoming more and more dangerous for an absurd reason. There should be no reason that Coptic Christians and Muslims need to be fighting after a victorious revolution, which dethroned their former President. At this day and age, our world has become more accepting of all religions and people understand that people can practice whatever religion they chose in peace. But it is disappointing to witness these setbacks as Muslims and Christians continue to fight. It is just obvious that both sides need to leave each other alone and respect each other’s values. It is just outrageous for Muslims to burn churches and vice versa. For Egypt to become a stable nation once again, it is going to be necessary for the Muslims and the Coptic Christians to remain peaceful with each other and end this violence.

I used the site linked below and some sites it linked for my info:
http://mwrhodes.blogspot.com/2011/05/tweeting-scriptures-bad-for-church-or.html

What is the issue? Technology is the issue! Does technology pose a threat to the entire christian system? Will churches be brought down by iPad apps and Twitter? It's an interesting question that I think will be brought up over and over again in the upcoming years. I was drawn to this topic because I was curious to how someone was posting the bible on Twitter. It also spoke to how little my family goes to church, yet is still pretty religious… However, I have never been able to read through the entire bible. I've never had the patience for it. In my opinion I think that this summary of the bible over Twitter is a good thing. It is exposing a new generation of young people who might have been put off by the daunting challenge of reading the bible to the ideas in the bible. Also it's pretty obvious that the church does not have the sort of muscle it had years ago and I believe that it is in part to the rise of Atheism in America. Also I think that people don't trust the preachers because they are so old-school. Younger people of long ago were drawn to the hot-off-the-press bibles because they were new technology. Today young people are drawn to the internet and their smart phones. The bible exists in those digital places, but it is still the age old book that it has always been. Today's younger people prefer to skim a source and learn the general idea than to dive straight in and discuss it with authority. Young people are more likely to discuss it with their friends. Of course, because of technology the bible has been translated into basically every language. And plenty of people do use the same old book on their smart phones, but what has the church worrying is if these people are going to church or just creating an individual experience with God. A better question is if the church is even needed with places like Youtube offering bible commentary from the leading bible experts. In a time and age where meeting with people is hard to fit into one's schedule, where gas prices limit mobility, one must ask the question: are churches worth it? The one aspect that seems almost irreplaceable are the community groups started by the Church. However there are different communities out there than the Church. Everything that the Church can offer now-a-days can easily be replaced by more open counterparts.

http://www.depauliaonline.com/mobile/news/lack-of-religious-world-knowledge-stirs-debate-on-teaching-religion-in-public-schools-1.2154671

For this independent assignment, I looked at an article on religion in public schools. Because there are many issues regarding religion, I thought it would be interesting to see how schools were handling it. In todays world, you can not go anywhere without hearing about a world issue or another controversy in the news, it is nearly impossible to avoid dealing with the issue of religion. For this reason, I thought it would be interesting to see what schools do when it comes to teaching students about those problems.

This article discusses how in public schools the bible can be taught as an example of literature. I thought this was interesting, because growing up I went to a catholic school and we all took religion classes and attended mass every weekend. Now that I am in high school, this class is the first I have formally learned about religion in an academic sense. MPA seems to dance around the issue of dealing with religion in a formal sense. I think this is very unique, because in classic literature, you can't get away from biblical references and allusions. I frequently hear students mention that they have never learned about those sorts of things, but were instead just expected to know what the allusions were to. If students were taught about religion in a formal setting, there would be a greater knowledge base in the subjects that we are expected to know, and it would be easier to apply that knowledge into every day life and issues.

I think it is important to know and understand how religion plays into daily issues on the world stage. If it was politically correct to teach about religion in the classroom, I think everyone would be better off. One of the most interesting quotes from this article to me spoke to the difficulty of teaching religion formally in classrooms: (teaching) "becomes a slippery slope due to the fact that each teacher will talk about the subject out of their own experience." To me, this is less of a religious issue, but instead becomes more of a debate on how the issues are taught: fully, by including religious spins, or only partially, by leaving out half of the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/magazine/is-your-religion-your-financial-destiny.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=religion&st=cse

I read an article for, "Taking a Position" about the economic differences among the country's various religions. The article starts off by talking about the most affluent of the major religions which is Judaism. It stated that sixty-seven percent of Jewish households made more than $75,000 a year. Then it talks about Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists and how 20% or fewer make $75,000. As the article progresses, it mainly talks about the relationship between education and income which ends up being very interesting.

As soon as I finished this article I felt like the point of the article was to prove how important education is and how we can't control who the wealthy people are. The people who make more money can send their kids to better schools which somewhat depends on your religion but to an extent, it doesn't. Yeah, there are some that make it harder than others to become wealthy but for the larger religions it's what we make of it and how we live our own lives to some extent.

The reason I chose this article is because I was curious what they would say regarding the percentages of different religions involving their economic statuses. I really wanted to know what the success of Jewish people was because of the stereotype about how much they save their money and how important it is to them. I thought it would have more details and sources on percentages and backup to their reasoning but it was still good information and very interesting.

For my 'taking a position' assignment I decided to follow up on our class discussion of Tibet. Having just seen the Dalai Lama speak, this topic is very interesting to me and is of course relevant to what we discussed in class. However, other than what we covered in class, I did not know much about the relationship between Tibet and China and where it stands today. So, I turned to the Wikipedia page for a little more background information.
This debate deals with the sovereignty of Tibet, a debate that goes back to the Yuan Dynasty. However, l will discuss the issue's most recent past, starting in 1951, when the president of China Chiang Kai-sheck declared that "Tibet is a part of Chinese territory." China claims that its control of Tibet is one of sovereignty, not suzerainty. China has been in control of the region of Tibet for hundreds of years, causing some Tibetans (including the Dalai Lama) to be forced out. Over time, much of the old Tibetan way of life has been lost due to Chinese influence, and the Chinese themselves recognize that Tibet has its own unique culture and language. Many have claimed there to be human rights violations against the Tibetans caused by the Chinese, with one source estimating over 1,200,000 Tibetan deaths since the 1950 People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet.
I firmly believe that Tibet deserves its own independence. Right now, it has a fully operational government in exile, headed by a newly elected prime minister and the 14th Dalai Lama. This fact, coupled with knowledge that the Tibetans possess their own cultural uniqueness, language, and a land they call their own, constitute a need for a separate nation, away from the rule of the Chinese. It seems to me that the Chinese have suppressed the Tibetans with their causing the Tibetan political and spiritual leader to flee the country and this also demonstrates that they Tibetans need their own country. As far as I am aware, the U.S. has failed to acknowledge Tibet's need for its own country and claim for its original land back. I understand that China is an important economical ally to have, however, despite this, I think the right thing to do would be to back the Tibetans in their quest to regain their homeland.

Second try

I recently read, coincidentally, the same article that Maggie did. I was interested in the first part of the article which stated various facts from the Pew Research Center regarding the general knowledge of public school students in religion. Only 50 % of Americans were able to answer basic questions about faith. The article says that this report goes hand in hand with another report that says 6 in 10 adults view religion as very important in their lives. But isn't that the opposite? If over 60% of American adults respond this way, shouldnt they know more than 50% of basic religion questions?

The bulk of the article talks about whether public schools should teach about the world's religions or not. This article, published by DePaul University, says that yes, public schools should teach these courses because if the schools teach students about "people" in the world, students should be educated on their beliefs as well.

While DePaul is the largest catholic university in the country, I actually agree with what they are saying. One person was quoted saying that the New York Times rarely publishes articles that have nothing to do with religious tension and to understand fully, we must understand the religious roots which this article is based. This is why I think that having this course at MPA was a good idea, as well. Especially with all of the issues with, for example, Islam, Israel and Palestine you can't understand those issues without knowing the history of their religions. Given the facts reported earlier, most Americans probably think that the issues between Israel and Palestine is just because there is a long history of disliking Jews in he world. While this is true, we must know why. And to understand the why factor, we need to understand the religion at hand.

http://www.depauliaonline.com/mobile/news/lack-of-religious-world-knowledge-stirs-debate-on-teaching-religion-in-public-schools-1.2154671

After browsing through the possible choices for this assignment, I settled on an article which talked about religion in public schools. I thought this would be interesting because I have heard a lot about the poor quality of our education, and I thought it would be intriguing to see if religion was also grouped in this generalization. I hypothesized that this article would be an in depth look at the poor quality of our countries religious knowledge, and it turns out I was correct. The problem of our lack of education on religion, it would seem, stems from an early age in public schools.

A direct quote from the article proclaims that, "According to the Pew Research Center, Americans were able to correctly answer 50 percent of basic questions about a number of faith traditions. About half of those surveyed knew the Koran is the Islamic holy book, that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist, and that the golden rule is not one of the Ten Commandments." This is of no surprise to me, but it also is very disheartening. The article cited examples of why these seemingly easy questions were not answered correctly, and talked about the problem of teaching religion in schools and the controversy that surrounds it.

I believe that religion should be taught in all schools from an objective point of view, no preaching or anything, just the facts about the major world religions. This would help the global awareness of students, and educate them on topics which are becoming increasingly prevalent in the news and world today. It is ridiculous to not teach a religion simply because you don't believe in it. It is the duty of our country and teachers to inform kids of important topics.

For taking a position, I chose to read an article about a Priest from Florida who oversaw the burning of a Quran to an anniversary to 9/11. The priest was using his freedom of expression, however with an insensitivity towards Muslims. I feel that this priest should have been punished more severely for his actions. A man of faith should understand that actions like these can have profound effects on a religious community. His freedom of expression by burning Qurans is hypocritical and by starting his own organization to prevent Radical islam. I believe that America is not a Christian nation. It might have been based upon Christian ideals, but freedom of expression was established through the constitution. Freedom of expression and religion are two controversial topics. I stand on the side that stands with freedom of expression, however what the priest did was unacceptable. It was insensitive to Muslims and to Christians who did not agree with the priest felt angered by the defacement of their religion. Whether they like it or not, a high standing individual of a religious establishment has standing and influence to the public eye. The public see this as a primitive attempt at revenge for an attack on our soil. I felt that that the priest was insensitive towards muslims and should be removed from his position, however I still stand by my point of freedom of expression.

The article I read dealt with the Vatican. There was a claim that in 1996 a priest sexually abused a child. Personally I find this to a sick act someone could do to an innocent. This man is a horrible person and should be sent to prison. What does the Vatican have to do with this well, they covered it up. They say they didn't but this man claims he was sexually abused as a child by this man, and I believe him. Why would any claim such a horrible thing. He probably didn't say anything earlier because he was scared as a child. The church has gotten a rap that priest molest children. I know that all priest are not child molesters but still. How could this man do it to this poor boy? It is just sick. The Vatican supposedly covered it to save their own skin, which makes sense. Why would they want to let people that a priest molested a kid. "The rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold instead the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and 'reputation'," . A man named Enda Kenny said this he is accusing the church of covering up rape cases to protect their reputation. If they are raping kids than their reputation is already ruined. Just this whole case just disgusts me. Here is the site where I found it.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14774142

Extra Credit: - Taking A Position

Press review: Who will stop 'crazy' Quran-burning priest?
September 09, 2010
By Simon Hooper, CNN
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-09/us/quran.burning.media.reaction_1_quran-terror-attacks-muslims?_s=PM:US

I read the article on the threat of burning the the Quran proposed by reverend Terry Jones. When this new of the burning hit the fan there was controversy across the Muslim community displaying outrage. He planned to do this on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. It was decided that he would not burn the holy book in fear of putting the U.S. troops in danger. I believe there are extremists on both side and organized religion can have good and bad sides to it sometimes. I think it is good that the Quran was not burned or I think it would results in more violence towards our troops and increased acts of terrorism on the United States. Jones seemed to want to prove a point of not being "afraid" and that he will get the Muslim's back for what they did on 9/11 although it was not all Muslims that were involved. There seems to be a strong prejudice against the Muslim community for the terrorism acts from Al-Qaeda.

This is the article I read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/world/roadside-bomb-kills-dozens-in-southern-iraq.html?_r=1&hp

The article I read, “Explosion Kills Dozens of Worshippers in Iraq” discussed the most recent violence against Shiites. This article seemed very appropriate after just covering the tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. In this story, insurgents set off an explosive in a southern Iraq city of Basra. This explosive was detonated among a group of pilgrims making a trip to the Khatwa mosque. This pilgrimage marked the end of the Shiite holiday of Arbaeen. There was not a specific controversial issue discussed in the article however, the picture that went with the article was one of a soldier, reminding me of the controversial issue of whether to stay in Iraq or pull the troops out. I believe there is no easy way to answer this question. I heard an awakening fact the other day about how significant the death toll was in Iraq opposed to the collapse of the World Trade Centers. This made me wonder, has this war really been worth it? I don’t think there is an easy way to answer this question or decide whether to pull the troops out. Because we do not know what would have happened if we had not reacted to 9/11 it makes it difficult to argue against not having troops stationed there. The most important reason for having troops in Iraq is as a preventative measure, taking the fight to the insurgents. But when you look at the outcome of the resulting violence it makes you wonder whether the casualties might have been decreased had we not reacted at all.

What is your issue? Why did you choose this particular issue?
What is your position? (In other words, tell us what you want to say...)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/santorum-and-gingrich-scramble-for-the-conservative-vote/?hp

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-14/santorum-wins-backing-of-u-s-religious-leaders-before-primary.html

For my “Taking a Position” independent assignment, I looked at the role that religion and faith were playing in the Republican primary race. I didn’t so much look at individual candidates as much as the way they were attempting to appeal to certain demographics through their policies and beliefs. As the Bloomberg article I included above mentions, “60 percent of 2008 Republican primary voters said in exit polls that they consider themselves “born again” or evangelical Christians.” This alone tells of the significance of appealing to a certain demographic when it comes to getting the Republican primary bid. News this morning was that southern religious leaders have given their support to Santorum. This causes me to question how he as a candidate, and candidates in general may change their beliefs or waffle between points in order to appeal to a certain group, even when it is not what they truly believe.