Marking Period 4: Monday #3

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.

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.

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.