Because my religion says so...

GOD WILLS IT! This phrase along with many others like it have been spoken throughout history as a means of justification for peoples actions. People have always used religion as a reason for what they do, why they believe one thing over another, and to influence others. Whether or not there is legitimacy behind using religion as justification will be disputed until religion ceases to exist on Earth.

People have used religious reasoning for both positive and negative actions in every corner of the world. Crusaders used the line "God Wills It" as a reasoning for their actions against others throughout the crusade. It seems inappropriate to allow religion to be used as such a tool to justify the hurting of others. So therefore should we not accept religious reasoning in fear that it would be used to harm others?

While on the other hand we have examples such as Mother Teresa who's actions to help others were spurred by religious reasoning as well. Of course it is completely acceptable to allow someone to use religious reasoning if they are helping to care for the less fortunate, right?

Then we have unusual cases such as that of Muhammad Ali; who used his religion as a reasoning to not participate after being drafted for Vietnam. I understand that he wouldn't want to have to go to war, I wouldn't either, but as a citizen of the United States shouldn't he be required to serve. If not then why isn't everyone giving a religious justification for not participating. Yes, the US is known for its religious freedom but doesn't this under mind the US by saying that one persons religion is above our laws?

Ideally most of us would probably say that its O.K. to use religion as a justification to help others, while disapproving using religion to justify negative acts against others, but the world doesn't work like that. So I have two questions for you.
1. Does religious justification sit above the laws of the country that we live in?
2. If you had to choose one way or the other would you A) Accept the continued use of religion as a justification for BOTH positive and negative uses; or B) No longer accept religion as a justification for either and see what else motivates peoples actions.

I'll be the first to answer my questions.
1. As much as I would not wish to be or wish upon anyone else to be drafted I would accept that I am required to serve the country whether I like it or not. I think that if you allow people to begin to use religion as an excuse then the government would ultimately become a puppet of religion. Once one religion is on top the idea of religious freedom would probably begin to disappear and replaced with the top religions beliefs.
2. I would choose for religion as justification to be done away with. Let people give their other reasons for the actions that they perform whether good or bad. Religion shouldn't be used as a shield to hide behind when you can not give better reasons for your actions.

Has Humanity Outgrown Religion?

First off, please understand that this question has very little to do with the existence of God or the correctness of any religion. Although you may feel compelled to answer with something like; "we must have public churches and open religious ceremonious because God tells us so," that limits the true scope of the question. What I am really putting into question is whether humanity still needs the common ground of God (any God, any higher power) to stay connected and maintain rules.

Starting with the first civilizations in Mesopotamia, humans have answered the unanswerable questions of the Earth and the Universe with the idea of a higher power of God. This understanding of God made people feel obliged to build massive pyramids and temples, have intense religious ceremonies, and come together to worship and even give sacrifice. The scholars of the time or "Prophets" would write stories that included valuable lessons about how to live and interact with each other, and these stories would become divine laws that the rulers would enforce on all citizens.

It is clear that organized religion has had a huge impact on humanity since those times. Hell, the crusades would not have been possible without God to unify the forces! Since people would all have to leave their homes and go to worship, a sense of community was formed amongst the people and a common ground was established amongst the entire race. Most religions contain a very similar set of values, and these values made clans change from barbaric to civilized societies. In a time of slow communication and highly separated groups of people, organized religion humanized the world.

But, is religion still humanizing the world? Does it still bring us closer together, or draw us farther apart? We now have places like India and America where communication and transportation have allowed diverse groups of people to feel connected and understand the laws even over massive areas of land. People of any religion are able to get along and obey the laws of the new ruling G, Government. Where does organized religion fit in here? Since the 'religious' value system is nearly universal, wouldn't it make more sense to teach these values to everyone in schools and thus not have the need for separate religious sects? It seems that nowadays, organized religion only creates division that leads to war and oppression. We have proven that we can get along and maintain laws without religion. Why not take it a step further and let everyone in?

More on California's Prop 2

From the New York Times magazine:

Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University and a leading figure in the animal rights movement, compares Proposition 2 to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, calling Proposition 2 the “other historic ballot this November.” If it passes, it would affect more animals — almost 20 million — than any ballot measure has in U.S. history.

Because California is the largest agriculture state in the country, and often a trend-setter on social issues, the ballot is a bellwether for farm-animal-welfare reform nationwide. Many experts predict that if Proposition 2 becomes law it will create a ripple effect, putting pressure on other states to pass similar reforms and pushing major food corporations to go crate-free and cage-free.

Public Smoking Ban=Modern Savior!!!!

I[Sarah Oldham] am repulsed by even the slightest hint of smoke. Not only does it reek, but so many pictures and facts bombard my mind. I recall the speakers who came to my grade school with holes in their neck, having to talk through a robot-sounding box pressed up to their vocal chords. I think about my great uncle and aunt who died from cancer due to extensive smoking. I also think of the pictures from my mom’s nursing books; pictures of patients with amputated toes and wounds that won’t heal because of their poor arterial blood flow. I think that smoking is one of the stupidest things a person can do to themselves, especially young adults and teenagers because we have been educated on the subject so extensively. Several of my friends and distant family members are smokers, and they are strongly against the newly popular laws forbidding smoking inside public places. I am a huge fan of this law; if people wish to slowly kill themselves, they are free to do so, but I do not want to breathe in their harmful second-hand smoke while trying to enjoy a meal or a game of bowling with my family.

Once again, I agree with Sarah. :-) Smoking is extremely repulsive. I simply can't see why anyone would want to indulge in "cancer sticks". They're so intensely harmful it's hard to imagine anyone would want to be subjected to it. My grandmother used to smoke 3 packs a day and died of lung cancer before I was even born. The addiction is frightening, she knew she was dying, but she continued to smoke until the day she died. It's amazing that something so small can take away a life, much less many others' lives. I believe that the law banning public smoking is one of the most genius decisions ever made. Applause for the government who finally decided on a way to potentially save millions of lives! It helped to calm the selfishness; for once, awareness was raised to bring the harmful effects on non-smokers to the forefront. I have to say, I'm much happier knowing that I can enter into a restaurant without dying a little.

What are your views on smoking? What do you think about the public smoking ban? Do you think public smoking could have been handled in a different way?

Gay Marriage: Is It Right?

Over fall break, I [Sarah] was sitting with my dad and grandma, watching the news. When a reporter commented on the new gay marriage laws passed in Connecticut, my grandma went on a rant clearly stating her disapproval and how much “these people” sickened her. My dad was quick to agree, he brought up why these laws were against our religious views and about how they are all sinners; ‘marriage is meant to be shared only between man and woman, nothing else.’ But it wasn’t that they solely were against the marriage of same sex couples, but they were criticizing them being open about their ways and being together at all. I didn’t know how to react, so I was left to sit there. I knew I couldn’t voice my opinion without them verbally attacking my views. I have a somewhat in-between opinion; I don’t believe that the government should have the power to prevent civil union between same sex couples, but I do not think that they should be able to be united by marriage within the church. Gay couples do have the right to be happy and be together, but I have been raised and taught (Catholic schooling for 13 years) that it is against my religion as well as some others.

I[Whitney] would have to say that I agree with Sarah on this issue. I also was raised to be a devout Catholic, and even though I'm open to considering all situations, I can't possibly give up the morals that my religion says I should believe. I believe that love is love, and I believe that a person can't choose who he or she loves, even if it does mean that the significant other is of the same sex. I believe that marriage is a sacred union, and yes, the government has no right to interfere. But in the sacred confines of a church, and also due to the separation of church and state, the church, not the government, has a right to choose who it will marry. I believe that homosexuals should not get to challenge the church's wishes, why should anyone get to challenge beliefs that are specifically laid out in a religion's guidelines? A civil union is acceptable, but let's take a dive into reality.

However, considering that America accepts all religions, do you think that we should grant gays the right to be united by marriage in the church? Do they have the right?

Discuss.

Harry Potter or Harry Plotter?

This is really Scott Gula. My account wouldn't let me post for some reason, so Tyler let me post through his account. In no way do the ideas presented in this post reflect the views of Tyler.

Here's a story about a women named Laura Mallory, from Loganville a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia who is on her second crusade to remove Harry Potter from school libraries. She says Harry Potter is trying to indoctrinate children as wiccans or practitioners of religious witchcraft. She claims the reason behind violent acts such as school shootings, are due to the evil promoted by books such as Harry Potter. According to her, these actions wouldn't happen if children read the Bible instead.

This could be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why is it that fanatical Christians think that Harry Potter is corrupting their children? I don't understand how people can think these books are attempting to turn their children into witches. The intentions behind Harry Potter are not those of Wiccan propaganda, it is the story of a woman and her child trying to make enough money off her books to survive. Mallory should realize that people aren't stupid enough to believe in magic and spells. Kids these days don't read Harry Potter to learn the ingredients to polyjuice potion or to find out how to defeat a dementor, they read the books because they are thrilling works of literature.

If anything the Harry Potter books have done more good than bad. Kids these days don't read enough, but because of Harry Potter an entire generation of children have been inspired to explore the world of literature. Kids stop watching TV and playing video games to read these books. And besides even if a child wants to believe in magic and wizards, what's so bad about having a little imaginaion?

Give Your Name to the Cause!

I understand that many people are passionate about different issues. Here at a Catholic University I overhear many conversations about religion, sex and abortion but would you be willing to give your name to the cause... literally? A 19 year intern of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has done so by legally changing her name to “Cutout Dissection.com” to protest the use of dissection in the educational system. Her name leads you to a website on why she did it and information about PETA. I know people are passionate about their beliefs but I find this to be ridiculous. Is this making a mockery of her conviction? Does this show appropriate support for her principles? Obviously she is getting the attention that she wanted but is this just a cry for help?
I found this to be repulsive. I find PETA pointless, non-influential and radical and this action by this mentally incompetent girl proves it. This is what is wrong with these groups. Why do these people with no lives feel like they are going to make a difference by changing their names to some PETA Website? Sure I looked at it, made fun of it, and dismissed it. On one of her links she mentions that, “My fellow interns call me Cutout, but my family still calls me Jenny.” I would call her stupid. She also pathetically states that “[Her] favorite thing to do is to introduce [herself] to people as Cutout Dissection.com, which always raises a few questions.” The only question that it raises to me is as to her mental capacity.
The scarcest thing though is that she is actually encouraging other morons to peruse this type of demonstration. The only voice of reason on the blog where this information was posted was a guy who was also named “Nick”,
“Really? This is the dumbest thing I have heard of in months.
What a waste of my tax dollars to allow you to go through the court system to get this done. Not to mention a waste of your own money to accomplish this.
I can say so much more as to why this is just, absurd... but I won't bother.”
I don’t think I have ever come across such a laughable absurdity in my life. This girl formally known as Jennifer Thornburg is a blemish on the American Spirit. This is truly a mockery of what our founding fathers have fought for in the matter of free speech.

We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming...

...to point out that the New York Times Magazine is publishing its "Food Issue" this week, with an article by your old pal Michael Pollan, among others. I haven't read through it yet, but it looks like there might be some useful material for your next papers. All right, back to Fall Break - enjoy!

The Choice of Life or Death

Tiffany and I agreed that the theme of this week’s blog would be human life issues. So, to continue along that line of thinking, here is our post on “Doctor-Assisted Suicide.”

Tiffany’s Stance: When we see people in pain, we all feel a sense of sympathy and want to help them. So what are we supposed to do when their pain is unbearable and there is nothing the doctors can do about it?
Although hospital situations are all unique, I believe, in certain instances, people deserve the right to decide when it is time to end their life. Now, a physically healthy person hospitalized for depression should not be given this right. They should be given psychiatric help instead.
The instances I am talking about are when a person is very close to death and there is no longer any hope of recovery; times when the medicines are simply prolonging death. People in these situations should not be forced against their will to live through the pain. As long as they fully understand what they are asking for, they should be able to determine what they want to do with their life.


Ryan’s Stance: Many of you probably guessed my position on this issue as soon as you read the title of this post. However, permit me the privilege of making my case anyway. My view and reasoning in regards to this issue is much the same as it was for my case against the death penalty: every human being has a fundamental right to life and dignity, and a suicide, no matter how you phrase it, violates a person’s dignity.
We’ve all been told since who knows what age that “it’s your life and you can do what you want.” To a large degree, this statement is true- you can learn what you want, travel where you want, get body piercings/art the way you want, live where you want, and work where you want (provided, of course, that you are capable of doing such things and that they are permitted by law). However, it’s not your job to decide when you want to end your life. That is a natural process that is in God’s hands. (And yes, I “must” use religious conviction in this post, because that is where I draw morality from.) However, if someone is involved in a nearly-fatal accident and has furnished health care providers and/or family members with DNR (“Do Not Resuscitate”) orders, those are fine. It’s morally acceptable for a person to consciously choose that in the event of an accident or similar problem, he or she would not like to live in a vegetative state on a respirator for the rest of his or her natural life. But no matter how you phrase it- “mercy killing,” “doctor-assisted suicide,” or any other similar term- is morally unacceptable. When I say a person has fundamental dignity, it means that a person has value and worth as a living human being until natural death. A person who hurries death with drugs so as to end the suffering of illness is committing suicide and any doctor who helps is violating the life of his or her “patient.” This of course is not to say that palliative medications are also prohibited. On the contrary, I would encourage the use of palliative medications until a person’s natural death. And I should also say that it is possible to find meaning in pain and suffering. But pain does not “end” a person’s dignity, nor does it remove the person’s life from God’s hands.

Many people will never know how they actually feel about this issue until they are put into the situation, whether it is over a loved one’s life or possibly their own. But at this time in you life, how do you feel about assisted suicide? Should hospital patients had the choice to take their own life or should they be forced to let nature take its course? Is “doctor-assisted suicide” morally acceptable? Is it an inevitable consequence of modern society? Is it indicative of a type of “social/psychological illness”?

The Death Penalty

Tiffany and I agreed that this week we would promote a discussion on the blog about human life issues (in a way continuing off of the abortion debate started last week). So, first up, the death penalty.

Tiffany’s Stance: The death penalty is such a controversial issue that many people find it hard to take one side. Personally, I am one of those who can’t make up their mind. I see benefits to both having it and not. But to spark the debate among the bloggers, here are some reasons the death penalty should be utilized.

To start, the degree of crime can be used. Many people feel that a murderer or rapist is getting what they deserve when they are put to death. They damaged another human being’s life so theirs should be damaged as well.

A second reason, put bluntly, is efficiency. The criminals of serious crimes who are sentenced to life imprisonment are taking up place in the prisons. They are never going to be released into the world, so basically they are wasting space in the prison cells.

A third and final reason is the wasting of resources. The prison system is providing food, water, heat, and a place to sleep for people who do not deserve it. If the criminals were put to death, then those resources that would have gone to them, can go to the homeless who never did anyone any harm.

Ryan’s Stance: As everyone could plainly see last week on the blog, I am against abortion and unswervingly pro-life. However, I believe that someone who is “pro-life” cannot let that description stop at abortion. With regard to human life, I take the “seamless garment” stance: I am pro-life on all issues regarding human life, and so I also stand against the death penalty.
It is my firm belief that every human being has a right to life from conception to natural death, and the death penalty violates this fundamental right. I would condone the death penalty in one abstract situation: If a society does not have the means to adequately and securely imprison the perpetrator of a very serious crime who, outside of maximum incarceration, poses a grave threat to the life of each member of the society, that society may take action to protect itself from this person by execution. However, such situations would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and, as Pope John Paul II said, in the context of modern civilization such situations are difficult if not impossible to find. Other than this one exception, the death penalty must be avoided as a punishment for crime.

Many of you may assail this position in your comments, but I think a large part of our demand for the death of a criminal results from his or her dehumanization. We must remember that criminals are human beings with a fundamental right to life. This in NO WAY condones the person’s conduct or excuses him or her of due jail time (i.e. life imprisonment). However, we must also keep in mind that even criminals have a right to natural death, for how is there hope for a criminal to change his or her ways and turn from a prior life of crime if we cut his or her life short? And, of course, every such criminal would be given the opportunity to repent and make amends to the victim’s family only within the context of serving a life-sentence without the possibility of parole inside a maximum security prison. Surely there are far better ways to deal with criminal actions than death.

Now, we know that the reasons given, both for and against the death penalty, have probably not changed anyone’s mind. But what are your thoughts on capital punishment? Are you stuck in the middle with regard to this subject? Or are you one who feels strongly towards one side? Why do you take the stance you do?

The Drama With RA's...

Let's Try again...hehe

Have you and your roommate had problems? Have you ever just wanted to talk to someone of authority, but could not? Who do you talk to….your RA? Yeah right. Let’s get real; the people who are monitoring over us in the dorms are less than a year older than us. How do they possibly know how to handle our problems when they do not have that much more life experience than we do? It is nice to think that RA’s are watching over us, but are they really? From both our experiences we have found that the RA’s are basically getting paid to live with a bunch of freshman.

Most of the RA’s we have encountered are sophomores at Xavier. It is true that RA’s can help, but wouldn’t they be able to help more if they were juniors or seniors? The RA’s are always posting up signs and making our halls look pretty, but rarely have we encountered an RA with good advice regarding the real problems. Whether it is noisy neighbors or horrible roommates the RA’s do not seem to bother with these issues until they have to.

I guess when it is all said and done the real issue is: do we want older more experienced RA’s watching our backs or young RA’s who act like our friends, but don’t know how to help us when we really need help? Well, from our experiences and in talking with others it would be better to have the more experienced, knowledgeable RA.