Taking a Position

Based on a few readings we were assigned, such as the article dealing with the footbaths installed in universities, and the story on the scarf and its meaning, I feel that there needs to be some understanding met between Muslims and non-Muslims. In dealing with the footbath story, I thought it was interesting that such an idea evolved, and used government money to install these footbaths. Not to say that it is not a good thing, but it surprised me how such a controversial issue does not have more attention drawn to it. I mean to say that the specific reason to put these footbaths in was because of a need for a convenience, and necessity, for those believing in Islam. Needless to say, these “footbaths” can be used for other things, but the specific issue is that they were installed for the intended purpose of washing feet and making it more convenient for those celebrating Islam to have a footbath, using government money. I think that it was a good thing to install these footbaths, but that it was not necessary to use government money. This can cause controversy with others, because then people will start to argue about the government refusing to spend their money on other “religious” needs, but then making an exception for the Islamic community at colleges.
In dealing with the issues such as the story of the hejab, I felt that this is where the understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims needs to be found, which is an obvious thing to say, but there needs to be understandings that are reached between both sides. On the one hand, it is morally wrong and even illegal to discriminate against someone based on their faith. Yes, there is a war going on in Iraq and there will be natural biases against Muslims from non-Muslims, but we still need to be able to get along. The Muslims here are just living their lives out and trying to cope with everyday life, like anyone else living in America. Non-Muslims don’t understand how hard it could be for those who celebrate Islam, due to many factors such as ignorance, biases, and the current war. We need to respect those who celebrate Islam, because they live on this earth and try to feed their families just as everyone else is trying to do. On the other hand, it is hard to conquer one’s biases based on what one has been taught, and influence from the media. One cannot expect those biases to disappear. Things in the United States are slowly changing, and demanding a more rapid pace for this new experience of dealing with discrimination against a religion to change won’t speed up this process. Obviously, things will change eventually, but the journey is long and hard for all of us. For some, it’s trying to deal with new changes that present themselves in an abrupt manner, with the knowledge that no matter how hard you fight it, the process of change will win in the end. For others, it’s being the change, and how hard it is for others to understand that you are just simply trying to live your life. Ignorance is our biggest enemy, for both sides of the spectrum, and that looking at a situation from the other perspective might help to bring us all closer together.

I am not an Atheist. However, I am very adverse to the idea that one can reject an observable, time-tested theory on faith alone. The debate over whether or not evolution exists has been around since Charles Darwin introduced it. The basis of these claims are upon reading the fine print of the Bible’s creation story, which was written by man long before the theory of evolution was discovered. I chose to address this issue because I, on the side of evolution, have experienced it first hand, and everyone who took biology with Mr. Jensen did too. For those who forget, or weren’t there, let me explain; Mr. Jensen had three boxes of colored toothpicks: 500 red, 500 blue, and 500 green. He spread them all out at random in the courtyard in the grass and we were sent out to find as many as we could. After 10 min he told us to bring the toothpicks back to the room and count them up for each color. As a class we found the most red toothpicks with about 420, second was blue at around 380, and green with a distinctly lower number of around 220. The results were clear the green toothpicks were better camouflaged and thus had higher chances of staying alive until they could breed (that is if they were alive and not toothpicks). This experiment was no trick and we were only told to go get toothpicks nothing more. Evolution is in essence the same; things more fit for their environment are more likely to survive to pass on their genes. To this experiment a ‘creationist’ may claim that God created everything and that they suit their environment because God made them that way, not because of evolution. There is more evidence of evolution in the fossil record, which goes back billions of years. Not a mere five or six thousand. It shows a clear path of evolution from simple one-celled microorganisms through extinctions and the new species radiating out from one original species. At this point most people are willing to accept evolution. But there are still some who say that the dinosaurs were put in the ground as Satan testing our faith, and the same goes for carbon dating. Even if this statement were true I counter with the fact that with the recent development of AIDS the number of people with sickle cell anemia in effected areas has increased. Sickle cell anemia is normally has an adverse effect on people, it causes red blood cells to be misshapen and thus are less effective in oxygen transfer. With an increases in AIDS however having sickle cell anemia also reduces the chances of HIV turning into AIDS thus extending the lifespan of the person and increasing the chances of passing on their genes to their children. Some may say that it is the work of God that the people survive or die. For people this stubborn I ask them to look at their families, their children and/or parents. Are there not differences and similarities, even over a few generations can those small differences can be traced? The same goes with animals; breeders and farmers alike capitalize on these very differences to get what they want from height to milk production. Over time the differences might become very distinct, skin color or different face shapes. The very peoples of the world today show these differences. And if a person would still stand behind the test of faith belief, I ask has God not himself created evolution, if that is true how can a religious person deny the teaching of evolution in school?

A few days ago I read an interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/pressandpublishing.religion) discussing the implications of possible self-censorship of people writing about religion. The particular book in question is The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones. It was due to be published by Random House over a year ago, but was dropped by the major publisher when fears arose that the novel might cause offence, and even a lawsuit. For the book is a novel, a fictional account of Mohammad’s wife Aisha, but it has attracted the attention of those who wish to prevent the book from being published. The next publisher to take up the book was Gibson Square, which was firebombed in the first week of October by Muslim extremists who took offense to the book and its implications of Islam. The real problem is not the bombing: no one was hurt, and there was minimal damage; the real problem is the self-censorship by Random House, a worldwide publisher, who claims that the book incites violence, which is disingenuous to say the least. The book itself does not incite violence; people choose to commit violence, and the book’s author is not responsible for their actions. I think that the reactions of Random House were wrong and that it should have published the book, instead of bowing to imagined pressure and eschewing it to another, much smaller publisher that cannot fight off the now all too real attacks as easily. The fact that the book is a novel does not seem to matter for some people who have the audacity to challenge the freedom of speech the author has. The threats of violence and the bombings have no place in a discussion on whether a book is proper to be printed or not.
These recent attacks bring up an interesting point about Islam: is Allah a weak god? The fundamentalists who consistently attack any attempt to portray Allah or Mohammad in a different perspective are making it seem as though Allah cannot withstand the hurled criticisms of scattered opponents. They feel the need to shield their god from any harm, as though the faithful would forget their god should he be exposed to a little criticism. Many other religions have had their share of abuse thrown at them, and they have still survived throughout history. The movie “The Life of Brian” came and went without disrupting the flow of Christianity, and the Satanic Verses, while them disrupted Islam, eventually only had the effect of making extremist Muslims more insecure about their god, when it should have strengthened their faith in the omnipotent.

- Because it was the first religious issue I could think of, I chose polygamy. For more information on the subject I used various articles from the site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/.
- Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ and published the Book of Mormon in 1830. He initiated the practice of polygamy, which has now grown into a global issue. Currently, in the United States polygamy is illegal, though in some states polygamy is tolerated. Utah and Colorado are where polygamists are permitted as long as they are not publicly recognized. This is the same situation in Canada. Polygamy, again, is illegal, but in British Columbia polygamists can find refuge. Outside of North America, Muslim countries are mainly where polygamist sects can be found. Muslims believe that Muhammad permits polygamy as long as the man can provide for his wives. But whatever location, polygamy remains an issue. In hindsight, marriage has always been a controversial issue. Marrying into a different wealth class, a different racial background, and a different religion were all, at one time, an issue and in some cases still are. Now, predominately, same sex marriage is very controversial. And possibly in the future, if polygamist marriage becomes more popular, it will too be scrutinized. The point is that there will always be controversy regarding, what the current culture perceives as, irregular relationships. This is unfair because there will always be personal reasons for why someone wants to be with somebody else. And individuals with different beliefs can never understand these reasons. Common reasons why someone would choose to be a Polygamist include; an increased probability for kids, an increase of man’s alliances so he feels more like a leader and greater sexual relationships for the man. Reading about polygamy gave me greater knowledge of its current status in different countries and taught me about its origin and variations. Also, I did the assignment and took a position. The way I see it, polygamy is a moral decision and if someone wishes to pursue it then they should be allowed to do so.

I chose to write about abortion. Mostly because it is a very controversial issue in the country and also because I’m reading the Cider House Rules and it comes up in that a lot too. The first time I heard about abortion was when I was talking with a family friend who was very liberal and asked me what I though of the issue, I responded by saying I did not know what it was. I was about 9 then. She explained it to me and I decided that I was by no means against pro-choice but based on my background I felt as though it made most sense to support “pro-life”. I have known my entire life that I was adopted and accepted this without questions or wondering at a very young age and because I’m adopted I greatly appreciate the sacrifice my biological mother made to have me. I hate the terms pro-life and pro-choice because they don’t allow for the differentiation of possibly some middle ground such as certain qualifications of life, which is where the religious aspect plays in. Most famously in the more devout Christian church, it is believe that life is begun at conception, whereas many religiously affiliated yet typically liberal Americans view life to begin after the first trimester. For me, I support something somewhat in between that, I believe that there is not anything sacred about stem cells in a woman and that abortions before something resembling a fetus should be allowed on all grounds, but where it becomes difficult to me is in situations like rape or just a mistake. To me, a victim of rape should be absolutely allowed to have an abortion at any point, however it is quite possible maybe even probably that a devout Christian may argue something along the lines of it being God’s will and to me that is not acceptable. I greatly appreciate the sacrifice my birthmother made and I value life very much so because of it, but I don’t see how anyone could justify a required birth from something as degrading to a woman as being raped. Also, I think that it is frustrating that many strongly religiously affiliated people determine life to begin at conception. From a biological standpoint, there is not way to create life from the embryonic stem cells without further development. It seems to be only logical, which I believe very strong is what lacks in their argument, that life should begin when there is something that could be lost or could actually die if not treated correctly. Overall, I would say I do not agree by any means with the religious zealots who are completely against abortion, but I think that a woman should know what she would choose to do before being sexually active and if or when there is an actual life, she is prepared to make a very quick and informed decision on whether or not to give birth to the child.

One of the most unique qualities the United States has to offer, is that its citizens are allowed to practice their own beliefs. They can worship any God they so choose, knowing there will be no persecution from the government. The issue I would like to discuss is about the reliance on only God for physical healing rather than medicine. I remember hearing a few years ago that there are some faiths where they believe that no matter how severe the medical condition they are in, the choice of using medical treatment is not considered. In the Christian Science religion, they believe in following the example of Jesus, bringing the real or ideal man more clearly into thought. Christian Scientists believe that Jesus was "the Wayshower", a proof by example of the divine method of healing sin, sickness and death. According to the Christian Science belief, there are no limits to the type of medical conditions that can be healed through prayer. This is something I believe as well. In my opinion, everyone is entitled to how they want to be treated. If I have a cold I have the option of getting medicine such as a cough drop or prescribed antibiotics from a doctor, or rely on God to take care of me. I myself am a Christian, and I believe that God can heal anyone. However, I don’t understand the rejection of medical treatment when the matter of death is at hand. If my little brother is dying of cancer, I would want him to be given the very best medical treatment to increase his chances of living. Praying and relying on God is very important to me as well. I think God does what he does for a reason, sometimes putting us in positions to test our faith in him. Does this mean leave my brother to die? No, I believe its more about putting the matter in God’s hands, AND doing my best to help my brother.

During the Christianity unit I read two articles about women and homosexuals in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church had two main arguments for the use of women as clergymen. One went something like this, “Bringing females into the church will provide light during a time when the church is struggling to keep its candles lit.” Although this is not the exact phrase (I do not have my text with me), it is very similar. I assume the light represents attendance, participation, congregation size, and most importantly, revenue. In my opinion, the simple way of phrasing that argument would be to say: bringing in women would bring more money to the church. The other argument was that it would create a healthier psychological habitat for the men of the church. Although I believe it is unhealthy for men and women to be separated, I do not like the idea of bringing in women in benefit the mentality of men. It is true the men most likely suffer psychological consequences from being in such an isolated position, and we have seen the result of such consequences in child molestation cases. If women were brought into the clergy, I think the sexual abuse victims would only change from little boys to women. I know this sounds extremely harsh, but think about it for a second. The clergymen are still married to god and bound to the vow of chastity. But now, with the introduction of women, they have a new temptation with a less socially offensive outcome. (What I am trying to say is that in our society, a man raping a woman has less negative effects than a man raping a child.) There are many arguments that can be made for and against women in the catholic but one thing will always remain true: Eve questioned God, ate the apple, and now women for all eternity are damned with the concept of original sin. If a woman is automatically, upon birth, a sinner, then she should not also have the right to lead a congregation in prayer. A church cannot give women the lowest position on earth and one of the highest positions at the same time. They have to pick, and to me it seems as they have already made their decision and Eve won.
The other argument, about being Gay in the Catholic Church, has a similar aroma of hypocrisy. It is clear homosexuality is not okay with Jesus, Mary, or Joseph; therefore it should not be accepted amongst the leaders of the Catholic Church, right? Wrong! This article reveals that somewhere around 35% of clergymen are gay. Although it seems nearly impossible to measure the sexual preferences of the population, it is clear there is quite a larger number of homosexual men in the clergy than in the rest of the population. This claim makes perfect sense to me. A man is gay and Catholic. He knows he could never come out to his family, and he also knows he would be forever unhappy with a woman. With these two things in mind, he turns to the church. He doesn’t have to tell his family, he doesn’t have to get married, and he never gets to be happy. As the statistics of gay men in the clergy is revealed to the public, the church has two options: accept homosexuality, or try to hide it. Although it would be extremely hypocritical and embarrassing for the Catholic Church to openly accept homosexuality, it seems their best chance for survival.
The bottom line of both of these arguments is that the Catholic Church is losing its appeal. They think maybe loosening some of their boundaries, accepting women or homosexuals, would attract a greater portion of the population; and the truth is they’re right. But the problem is to do so would only add to the Catholic Church’s huge list of hypocritical actions. Eventually it will be time for people to realize the restrictions the laws of the Catholic Church place on our society are out of date and simply uncomfortable in today’s world. Eventually the Catholic Church will reach a point when it can not modify its regulations to meet the demands of society, and therefore lose its foothold in our culture.