Richard W. Garnett, a law professor and associate dean at Notre Dame and senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University, writes for USA Today about why he thinks President Obama's contraception mandate infringes upon religious freedom.
Garnett begins with a short explanation that Obama has passed a law requiring most religious institutions to pay health insurance that covers abortion practices and contraception. He believes that this impedes upon the religious freedoms promised in the Constitution, and that Obama's compromise - to ammend the law by having insurance companies foot the bill for said practices - will not work. Because it is so close to the 2012 elections and because even some of Obama's Catholic supporters had something to say about this law, Garnett claims this compromise is a ploy. He explains that the qualm is not that the Catholic institutions against this law are trying to deny access, merely that they are putting a stop to what they see as immoral. Addressing some supporters of the mandate, who apparently say this "is just part of the price these institutions must pay for participating in public life and engaging in 'secular' activities," Garnett defines commonly decent acts performed by religious institutions as religious in nature; they were religious before government took control of them, so they're religious and not secular now. (Forgive me, but is he implying government invented secularism?) Garnett thinks the government should, instead of forcing their beliefs on religious institutions, be thanking and monetarily reimbursing them; he thinks this law is compromising integrity, is un-American in its hostility to diversity, and is unfairly instilling conformity. And Garnett ends with a quick reminder that both Republicans and Democrats reacted negatively to the mandate.
As a woman, and particularly as a Jewish woman, living in close proximity to Loyola Hospital, that there is such anger on the Catholic side towards this new policy is scary. If something were to happen to me and I was taken to Loyola and I wasn't allowed the medical care I deserved, I would be shocked, angry, and not a little terrified. This sort of polarized religious reaction to a topic could be expanded in research that takes into account the way government respects or disrespects the religion(s) of its people - if we were living in, say, Rome, of course a law like this would not be passed. But here in America, where our people are famously of many different opinions and belief systems, the factors become whether we put religious morality before secular fairness.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Marking Period 4: Monday #2
Bonnie Erbe of the Chicago Sun-Times makes the argument that religion offers useful structure.
Observing the GOP presidential primary, Erbe contrasts religion in American and Europe. She notes that Europe is not zealous in their belief or non-belief, that they recognize religion sates certain basic human cravings. Referencing a Financial Times of London review of three books, she uses the three views - of the importance of religion, the illogical nature of religion, and a middle ground - to lead back to the GOP debates that show the candidates each in turn trying to prove their religious fervor. To think of them even suggesting G-d doesn't exist would be, well, sacrilegious: Erbe points out that in America atheism is frowned upon. She wonders at the way 90% of polled people in the US claim to believe in G-d while many don't regularly attend services and makes the conclusion that even anonymously Americans are afraid to be atheistic. Erbe believes religion answers unanswerable questions and provides a strong social structure, and that atheism could learn from this kind of structure and potentially provide a new climate for discussion.
Faith as a social and internal structure has basis in my life: whether I decide to stay Jewish (at this point I am pretty solid in my beliefs) or not, that I was brought up in an actively Jewish family has given me a rich heritage and has introduced me to some of the most important people in my life. American Jewish culture is unique, and because so many values are constant in most Jewish families in this country, I want to be Jewish because I find the community so welcoming and familiar. This concept of religion as a structural system can be related applied to religiously active countries - but I wonder if it excludes people of different religions. Having separate religious circles is relevant in most countries of the world - namely the struggle between the three monotheistic religions so characteristic of the Middle East.
Observing the GOP presidential primary, Erbe contrasts religion in American and Europe. She notes that Europe is not zealous in their belief or non-belief, that they recognize religion sates certain basic human cravings. Referencing a Financial Times of London review of three books, she uses the three views - of the importance of religion, the illogical nature of religion, and a middle ground - to lead back to the GOP debates that show the candidates each in turn trying to prove their religious fervor. To think of them even suggesting G-d doesn't exist would be, well, sacrilegious: Erbe points out that in America atheism is frowned upon. She wonders at the way 90% of polled people in the US claim to believe in G-d while many don't regularly attend services and makes the conclusion that even anonymously Americans are afraid to be atheistic. Erbe believes religion answers unanswerable questions and provides a strong social structure, and that atheism could learn from this kind of structure and potentially provide a new climate for discussion.
Faith as a social and internal structure has basis in my life: whether I decide to stay Jewish (at this point I am pretty solid in my beliefs) or not, that I was brought up in an actively Jewish family has given me a rich heritage and has introduced me to some of the most important people in my life. American Jewish culture is unique, and because so many values are constant in most Jewish families in this country, I want to be Jewish because I find the community so welcoming and familiar. This concept of religion as a structural system can be related applied to religiously active countries - but I wonder if it excludes people of different religions. Having separate religious circles is relevant in most countries of the world - namely the struggle between the three monotheistic religions so characteristic of the Middle East.
Marking Period 4: Monday #1
My general topic for this marking period is religion. I looked into Israeli-Palestinian conflict columns but had some trouble finding recent articles, so for now my focus will be the way religion fits into national society.
Henry G. Brinton of USA Today writes about the good versus evil mentality of American politics.
Brinton begins by using twentieth century examples of the US banding together against foreign enemies in times of war, but in times of peace we turn against each other. He cites this "duality" as religious in nature and present for the purpose of pinning blame on others. Its relevance is clear in the upcoming 2012 Election, where the concept of political extremes as a source of evil has come into play. A poll by the Center for Political Participation revealed that 61% of Americans think this good-versus-evil is unhealthy for our democracy. Brinton then cites New Testament professor Susan Garrett on two examples of Christians calling other Christians evil (I have to wonder what this means for non-Christians...), using this as a lead-in for his belief that there are no devils running for president in 2012. Rick Perry called our moderate president a "socialist," crossing the line into straight demagoguery. Gingrich called Romney dishonest for his work as a venture capitalist. Although creating an enemy can get votes, making other Americans into enemies is a waste of energy. Brinton believes we should focus this energy instead on foreign enemies or internal problems, such as "substance abuse, racism, sexual addiction, domestic violence or the disintegration of the American family." (As a pastor of the Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, the religious nature of his examples is to be expected.)
I'm only sixteen, but in my life I have on some level witnessed this concept of "duality" in action: from a young age it was drilled in my head to Osama bin Laden is - was - a terrible person, and as I've grown older I've become more aware of Democrats and Republicans attacking each other like two sides of bitter civil war. This topic of duality in the government of a fairly religious country might be able to be applied to the governments of other countries, and not just primarily Christian countries, either. Mr. Brinton called it a very Christian style of thinking, but Islam has a very good-versus-evil mentality as well.
Henry G. Brinton of USA Today writes about the good versus evil mentality of American politics.
Brinton begins by using twentieth century examples of the US banding together against foreign enemies in times of war, but in times of peace we turn against each other. He cites this "duality" as religious in nature and present for the purpose of pinning blame on others. Its relevance is clear in the upcoming 2012 Election, where the concept of political extremes as a source of evil has come into play. A poll by the Center for Political Participation revealed that 61% of Americans think this good-versus-evil is unhealthy for our democracy. Brinton then cites New Testament professor Susan Garrett on two examples of Christians calling other Christians evil (I have to wonder what this means for non-Christians...), using this as a lead-in for his belief that there are no devils running for president in 2012. Rick Perry called our moderate president a "socialist," crossing the line into straight demagoguery. Gingrich called Romney dishonest for his work as a venture capitalist. Although creating an enemy can get votes, making other Americans into enemies is a waste of energy. Brinton believes we should focus this energy instead on foreign enemies or internal problems, such as "substance abuse, racism, sexual addiction, domestic violence or the disintegration of the American family." (As a pastor of the Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, the religious nature of his examples is to be expected.)
I'm only sixteen, but in my life I have on some level witnessed this concept of "duality" in action: from a young age it was drilled in my head to Osama bin Laden is - was - a terrible person, and as I've grown older I've become more aware of Democrats and Republicans attacking each other like two sides of bitter civil war. This topic of duality in the government of a fairly religious country might be able to be applied to the governments of other countries, and not just primarily Christian countries, either. Mr. Brinton called it a very Christian style of thinking, but Islam has a very good-versus-evil mentality as well.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Marking Period 3: Monday #5
Throughout the various articles I've read written by Clarence Page for his column "Page's Page" in the Chicago Tribune, I have come to see Page as an independent thinker with generally liberal leanings. His articles, or at least the ones I read, deal with politics: he criticized the supercommittee's attempts to decide how to handle national debt; he noted the Tea Party Movement's apparent loss of sway; he harshly criticized Donald Trump's GOP debate; and he, despite labelling himself as an independent, noted the independent voter's loss of sway. There appears to be a trend here: Page continually proves using credible sources and his own deductive nature where in the government the powers lies: the people.
This is a very idealistic point of view, suggesting that voters have control. Yes, our government was created "by the people, for the people," but corruption and Democrat-Republican squabbles have undermined the strength of the system in a far more obvious way. In the first article I read, Page believes the supercommittee failed to come to an agreement because the mere twelve members couldn't bear to compromise any one of their party's desires. In the second, Tea Partyists were losing strength because they were compromising their ideals in search a larger goal: unseating Obama and putting a proper Republican in his place. In the third article, Page explains his opposition to Trump's debate in that voters are in the Television Age more swayed by what they see on TV than anything. In the fourth, he determines whether the surge of new independent voters may or may not sway the 2012 election in one direction or the other.
Just as the people in question in each article are diverse, so too are their opinions. Page, with a mix of objectivity and sarcasm, errs on the side against Republican policy. He states in the first article I read that he is in support of Obama's taxes-and-cuts plan. He labels himself an independent voters in the fourth article I read. Although he is never shown berating the Republican party, it is safe to assume he is probably the kind of independent that sides with Democrats. A well-informed man, he utilizes sources ranging from college studies to well-known news conduits to prove his points, suggesting he also expects an informed readership. He does not often resort to ad hominem attack, his judgments are supported, and overall I find him liberal and unafraid to show it.
This is a very idealistic point of view, suggesting that voters have control. Yes, our government was created "by the people, for the people," but corruption and Democrat-Republican squabbles have undermined the strength of the system in a far more obvious way. In the first article I read, Page believes the supercommittee failed to come to an agreement because the mere twelve members couldn't bear to compromise any one of their party's desires. In the second, Tea Partyists were losing strength because they were compromising their ideals in search a larger goal: unseating Obama and putting a proper Republican in his place. In the third article, Page explains his opposition to Trump's debate in that voters are in the Television Age more swayed by what they see on TV than anything. In the fourth, he determines whether the surge of new independent voters may or may not sway the 2012 election in one direction or the other.
Just as the people in question in each article are diverse, so too are their opinions. Page, with a mix of objectivity and sarcasm, errs on the side against Republican policy. He states in the first article I read that he is in support of Obama's taxes-and-cuts plan. He labels himself an independent voters in the fourth article I read. Although he is never shown berating the Republican party, it is safe to assume he is probably the kind of independent that sides with Democrats. A well-informed man, he utilizes sources ranging from college studies to well-known news conduits to prove his points, suggesting he also expects an informed readership. He does not often resort to ad hominem attack, his judgments are supported, and overall I find him liberal and unafraid to show it.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Marking Period 3: Monday #4
(I needed another post with analysis and didn't feel like using one of the articles I had already summarized...)
Page writes about whether independent voters are truly independent.
Clarence Page points out in this article that voters listed as independents aren't actually that "independent" of the Democrat-Republican mentality, and he backs this up by quoting political analyses from various credible sources. He begins by quoting the statistic that voters registered as Democrats and Republicans have dropped 2.5 million since 2008, but that many still vote for one party or the other. Respecting that politics aren't the only reason, Page notes that since the 1960s both parties have lost members because "television and suburbanization have liberated voters from reliance on precinct captains and other party favors." But, with evident sympathy for the independents, he explains that they are independent in hopes that they are voting for a person or an idea, not a party (this is the first of two instances that prove Page himself is a registered independent.)
Page then cites USA Today's report on voter numbers: Democrats have 42 million registered, Republicans have 30 million, and 24 million are independents. Out of the 2.5 million voters dropped out since 2008, the Democrats have lost 1.7 million. Continuing on to prove the independents have grown in rank, Page points out that in the eight swing states, Democrats and Republicans are down 800,000 and 350,000 voters respectively, while independents are up 325,000. Provided that Obama won all eight states in 2008 ("Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (sic - I support the use of the Oxford comma) and Pennsylvania,") it was predicted by North Carolina's election director that the 2012 election will be determined by independents.
Purposely contrasting his previous point, Page explains that independents generally know which side of the left-right debate they're on; election scholars have proved this and have questioned whether independents make a difference at all. A 1992 book called "The Myth of the Independent Voter" deduced that only 10% of independents actually vote for neither Democrats nor Republicans, and that these authors also found independents were often less informed on politics. In a sidenote Page comforts his "fellow self-declared independent voters," pointing out that the fact that they read his column suggests they should not be counted as "underinformed." That Page is an independent explaining the ineffectiveness of independents as a whole should be noted - he is commenting on the strength of the polarization in today's government.
Connecting back to his USA Today example, Page quotes from an Emory University study that although independents were 40% of eligible voters in 2008, they only made up 33% of the election votes, and only 7% of those people actually voted independently. Driving home the point that independents are ineffectual, Page notes that in the in the five presidential elections since 1972 that had a win margin of less than five, the independents actually voted for the loser (some examples being 1976, 2000, and 2004.) Page concludes by suggesting that perhaps some independents are hoping for a third party in the future. But, as this article proved how different independents' opinions are, a party will not satisfy their needs.
Page writes about whether independent voters are truly independent.
Clarence Page points out in this article that voters listed as independents aren't actually that "independent" of the Democrat-Republican mentality, and he backs this up by quoting political analyses from various credible sources. He begins by quoting the statistic that voters registered as Democrats and Republicans have dropped 2.5 million since 2008, but that many still vote for one party or the other. Respecting that politics aren't the only reason, Page notes that since the 1960s both parties have lost members because "television and suburbanization have liberated voters from reliance on precinct captains and other party favors." But, with evident sympathy for the independents, he explains that they are independent in hopes that they are voting for a person or an idea, not a party (this is the first of two instances that prove Page himself is a registered independent.)
Page then cites USA Today's report on voter numbers: Democrats have 42 million registered, Republicans have 30 million, and 24 million are independents. Out of the 2.5 million voters dropped out since 2008, the Democrats have lost 1.7 million. Continuing on to prove the independents have grown in rank, Page points out that in the eight swing states, Democrats and Republicans are down 800,000 and 350,000 voters respectively, while independents are up 325,000. Provided that Obama won all eight states in 2008 ("Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina (sic - I support the use of the Oxford comma) and Pennsylvania,") it was predicted by North Carolina's election director that the 2012 election will be determined by independents.
Purposely contrasting his previous point, Page explains that independents generally know which side of the left-right debate they're on; election scholars have proved this and have questioned whether independents make a difference at all. A 1992 book called "The Myth of the Independent Voter" deduced that only 10% of independents actually vote for neither Democrats nor Republicans, and that these authors also found independents were often less informed on politics. In a sidenote Page comforts his "fellow self-declared independent voters," pointing out that the fact that they read his column suggests they should not be counted as "underinformed." That Page is an independent explaining the ineffectiveness of independents as a whole should be noted - he is commenting on the strength of the polarization in today's government.
Connecting back to his USA Today example, Page quotes from an Emory University study that although independents were 40% of eligible voters in 2008, they only made up 33% of the election votes, and only 7% of those people actually voted independently. Driving home the point that independents are ineffectual, Page notes that in the in the five presidential elections since 1972 that had a win margin of less than five, the independents actually voted for the loser (some examples being 1976, 2000, and 2004.) Page concludes by suggesting that perhaps some independents are hoping for a third party in the future. But, as this article proved how different independents' opinions are, a party will not satisfy their needs.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Marking Period 3: Monday #3
An article on Trump's debate.
(This is the first of two analyzed columns for this grading period)
Clarence Page writes in this column about Donald Trump's proposed GOP debate and how it is being handled by the GOP. His position is that it should not happen and that the Republican Party should be doing something about preventing candidates from debating in it. He begins referencing Karl Rove's outrage at Trump's December 27 debate, and then he follows by highlighting the irony of Rove's reaction. Trump's debate is described on the conservative Newsmax website to be "'the most important meeting of the major Republican candidates before the Iowa caucus (sic) and primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida!'" This kind of over-statement is what Karl Rove has engaged in for years - it's what he is famous for: spinning information to suit his purposes, or being a "spin-doctor." Page outright states that he considers this "poetic justice."
But, despite emphasizing the irony, Page continues quoting Rove's issues with Trump's debate and explaining why Rove is right. First, Rove notes that Trump intends to endorse one of the candidates, meaning if he were to moderate a debate, Trump would not be impartial as moderators should be. Page comments, sarcastically calling Trump "The Donald" (his nickname) out on what would probably amount to a political version of Trump's reality show Celebrity Apprentice. Also, Page points out that Trump has said he might even try running for president in this election. Rove thinks the Republican National Committee chairman should put a stop this, and Page relays the chairman's less-than-favorable reaction later on.
In response to Rove's qualms, Trump is quoted calling Rove "'highly overrated,' not 'a smart person' and 'basically … a loser.'" Apparently this is similar to how Trump reacted to the first declined invites to his debate from John Huntsman and Ron Paul - that Page goes out of his way to mention this suggests his disapproval of Trump. Page capitalizes Trump's petulance by mentioning how kind Trump was to Newt Gingrich when he accepted the invitation. Then, Page connects back to the Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, who is leaving it up to the candidates to decide whether or not to participate in this debate, and ultimately the voters, or TV viewers, to decide whether to watch. Succinctly, Page says, "That's wise." He calls the debate "Trump's latest reality show," and makes this into a biting metaphor - suggesting Trump bring in guest judges like Randy Jackson (American Idol) and Bruno Tonioli (Dancing With The Stars) to help viewers decide - he carries to the end of the article.
Page ends the metaphor abruptly, stating that perhaps to get voters involved, "a little show biz the price we pay." Utilizing irony and sarcasm, Clarence Page explains why he believes Trump's GOP debate should not be allowed.
(This is the first of two analyzed columns for this grading period)
Clarence Page writes in this column about Donald Trump's proposed GOP debate and how it is being handled by the GOP. His position is that it should not happen and that the Republican Party should be doing something about preventing candidates from debating in it. He begins referencing Karl Rove's outrage at Trump's December 27 debate, and then he follows by highlighting the irony of Rove's reaction. Trump's debate is described on the conservative Newsmax website to be "'the most important meeting of the major Republican candidates before the Iowa caucus (sic) and primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida!'" This kind of over-statement is what Karl Rove has engaged in for years - it's what he is famous for: spinning information to suit his purposes, or being a "spin-doctor." Page outright states that he considers this "poetic justice."
But, despite emphasizing the irony, Page continues quoting Rove's issues with Trump's debate and explaining why Rove is right. First, Rove notes that Trump intends to endorse one of the candidates, meaning if he were to moderate a debate, Trump would not be impartial as moderators should be. Page comments, sarcastically calling Trump "The Donald" (his nickname) out on what would probably amount to a political version of Trump's reality show Celebrity Apprentice. Also, Page points out that Trump has said he might even try running for president in this election. Rove thinks the Republican National Committee chairman should put a stop this, and Page relays the chairman's less-than-favorable reaction later on.
In response to Rove's qualms, Trump is quoted calling Rove "'highly overrated,' not 'a smart person' and 'basically … a loser.'" Apparently this is similar to how Trump reacted to the first declined invites to his debate from John Huntsman and Ron Paul - that Page goes out of his way to mention this suggests his disapproval of Trump. Page capitalizes Trump's petulance by mentioning how kind Trump was to Newt Gingrich when he accepted the invitation. Then, Page connects back to the Republican National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus, who is leaving it up to the candidates to decide whether or not to participate in this debate, and ultimately the voters, or TV viewers, to decide whether to watch. Succinctly, Page says, "That's wise." He calls the debate "Trump's latest reality show," and makes this into a biting metaphor - suggesting Trump bring in guest judges like Randy Jackson (American Idol) and Bruno Tonioli (Dancing With The Stars) to help viewers decide - he carries to the end of the article.
Page ends the metaphor abruptly, stating that perhaps to get voters involved, "a little show biz the price we pay." Utilizing irony and sarcasm, Clarence Page explains why he believes Trump's GOP debate should not be allowed.
Marking Period 3: Monday #2
About the rise of Newt Gingrich and the fall of the Tea Party
In this column, Clarence Page writes about how Newt Gingrich's rise in popularity signals the fall of the Tea Party Movement. Page begins noting that Gingrich has gained so much attention with the help of tea party supporters. As a movement that formed to remove "fat cats and wheeler-dealers who line their pockets while raising taxes," that they would support Gingrich, who is known to have made millions by "advising, promoting and lobbying for big corporate and public policy interests" with companies such as Freddie Mac doesn't fit with their mission statement. He also reminds us that Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in history to be disciplined on ethics violations, driving home that the Tea Party is ignoring quite a bit of Gingrich's history. Why are they doing this? Because they'd rather Gingrich rise to beat out Romney for the Republican nomination and usurp Obama, whose administration led to the founding of the Movement in the first place.
Page explains that the tea partyists want him for his confidence and understanding of what the GOP is in support. He reasons that Gingrich's announcement of candidacy was perfectly timed because "the right was energized and the left [...] was demoralized," and Gingrich showed a decisiveness of yet Obama had not. From there on Gingrich had to contend with the indecisiveness of Republican polls - in particular, Mitt Romney's spot as the GOP favorite. But, with his own wit and Herman Cain's "stumbles," suddenly he was tying with or passing Romney in polls. Page notes that although this could be an example of "the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month," it being so close to the Iowa caucuses, this surge of popularity could prove pivotal.
Connecting back to the question of the Tea Party's pull, Page wonders if the Movement is buying into Gingrich possibly beating Obama in the 2012 Election or selling out on their ideals - he decides it is probably some of both. That they are beginning to blend in with other Republicans suggests to Page that "the name remains, but the spirit is fading."
In this column, Clarence Page writes about how Newt Gingrich's rise in popularity signals the fall of the Tea Party Movement. Page begins noting that Gingrich has gained so much attention with the help of tea party supporters. As a movement that formed to remove "fat cats and wheeler-dealers who line their pockets while raising taxes," that they would support Gingrich, who is known to have made millions by "advising, promoting and lobbying for big corporate and public policy interests" with companies such as Freddie Mac doesn't fit with their mission statement. He also reminds us that Gingrich is the only Speaker of the House in history to be disciplined on ethics violations, driving home that the Tea Party is ignoring quite a bit of Gingrich's history. Why are they doing this? Because they'd rather Gingrich rise to beat out Romney for the Republican nomination and usurp Obama, whose administration led to the founding of the Movement in the first place.
Page explains that the tea partyists want him for his confidence and understanding of what the GOP is in support. He reasons that Gingrich's announcement of candidacy was perfectly timed because "the right was energized and the left [...] was demoralized," and Gingrich showed a decisiveness of yet Obama had not. From there on Gingrich had to contend with the indecisiveness of Republican polls - in particular, Mitt Romney's spot as the GOP favorite. But, with his own wit and Herman Cain's "stumbles," suddenly he was tying with or passing Romney in polls. Page notes that although this could be an example of "the latest GOP flavor-of-the-month," it being so close to the Iowa caucuses, this surge of popularity could prove pivotal.
Connecting back to the question of the Tea Party's pull, Page wonders if the Movement is buying into Gingrich possibly beating Obama in the 2012 Election or selling out on their ideals - he decides it is probably some of both. That they are beginning to blend in with other Republicans suggests to Page that "the name remains, but the spirit is fading."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)