How do faith groups differ on the death penalty?

Balancing justice--life or death

Jury selection has begun for the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.  It is a life- and- death trial, and as jurors are selected, attorneys will determine the attitude of the various candidates with regard to the death penalty.  What religion an individual has or does not have will be important, as various faiths have differing views on the matter of the death penalty?

At the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in 2010, the Vatican went on record against the death penalty as did a leading Baptist theologian, David Gushee, both questioning it as a public policy  because it fails standards of justice.

What do you love most, your religion, race, country, profession or kind?

Mohandas K. Gandhi

"I am an American first, " Marty boldly stated, as he asserted his position in response to political issues around the world.  "I make my own decisions and believe that my country is the best in the world, so what other people think doesn't matter much to me."  Many people identify themselves first by where they live, but what are the other factors Americans use to view themselves and others or use as a measure for love and respect?

Marty is a Midwest fellow who knows how to maintain an argument by simply reminding people that he comes from a country identified by its leadership.  An American flag at his doorway proudly shows people where he stands politically. And in the tech corridor of Portland, where religion is said not to predominate, Marty remains an individual who is adamant about immigration and America's involvement in foreign wars.

"I believe if we stuck to ourselves and didn't get so involved with other people in different parts of the world we would be a whole lot better off.  When I vote, I want to make sure that the person I vote for stands up for this country first.  And this is what I say to people who don't see themselves as patriotic Americans and put our nation at the top;l I say love it or leave it.  And I'm a Catholic, but the Church doesn't tell me what to do.  I vote in the interests of being an American, and I love this country first."

Like Ron Edmundson, whose blog is dominated by topics related to America being first at almost everything and church as a dominant force in life, Marty sees himself as a patriot.  And so does Edmundson, for whom church is also important but loving America too as he explains:  "We love our country.  Period."

Americans of Spanish origin are often referred to as Hispanics or Latinos.  But how do they view themselves?  According to research by the Pew Forum, most of them self-identify by their country of origin.  This means they refer to themselves as Cuban, Mexican, Peruvian, etc.  Only 21% use the term American in how they label themselves.

CNN recently reported that most Americans maintain religion's influence is waning, so they want to see more religion in politics.  Many say they will vote for candidates in November's election based upon their religious views.  For them faith comes first.

For other people, what they do, the work they perform, is favored over many other factors in life.  Forbes investigated why people love what they do and found a number of areas that make work satisfying and sometimes predominant in life. Often people who are successful at what they do, and love it, are said to live in the Now.  They worry about what is happening around them as opposed to fanciful concerns about the negative what'ifs.

While people identify themselves, or favor most, what they do for a living, the country where they live, or their particular ethnic group, still others see themselves as reaching out beyond the limited borders of these factors to the greater good they see as coming from a world of options.  Gandhi viewed himself as not being limited by his ethnicity, although his devotion to India was clearly demonstrated by his life and actions.  Gandhi saw the struggles or the people of India as not unlike the struggles of others in the world and underlined peace as the overriding value of people everywhere.  In other words, his love for others crossed the borders of religion, ethnicity and profession, as he maintained his affection for people of the entire world.  To that extent, his views are similar to those of Buddha who said this: " To him in whom love dwells, the whole world is but one family"or Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith, who saw all humanity as the leaves and branches of a single tree of humanity and said,  "Glory not in love for your country, but in love for all mankind."

How we decide what is paramount in our lives differs from one person to another, however in many cases there are overlaps as well.  Most people will underline a balance of affection for what they do and where they live, or their faith and their ethnicity, but how those decisions are made are deeply personal and make a difference in how relationships are made and whether one strives for a peaceful accord or a debate in deciding who and what is best.

Religious dogma risks pleasures of sex

Budapest couple in love

Carol Forsloff - Is sex endangered by faith? Some research and some Russians say it is, apart from marital bliss. But is the pleasure of sex reduced by religious belief, how has that developed and what conflicts have occurred as a result.

Russian newspapers maintain it is religion that has aggravated one of man's greatest passions, which is sex. The result has been created unnecessary problems for many in the Western world.

It must also be mentioned that Russia is one of those countries with a large number of atheists, holdouts from the Communist era when religions were muffled for some time.  The Russian government found it wanted no part of religious groups competing for the minds and hearts of the Russian citizenry.

So what do the Russians say about sex and religion and how the latter interferes with the pleasure of the former?Let's take a look at some general research from the United States to see how information might compare.

Research shows that the abstinence programs don't work.  Teenagers seek the pleasure of sex and don't worry about the consequences, considering the statistics on teenage pregnancy.  The more religious the family, however, the more the teen is apt to delay sexual

gratification until after marriage, although the percentage is only slightly different than non religious families according to Pew Research.

A Russian reporter maintains that the church turned against sex in the 13th century, which initiated many of the present problems regarding sex. Prior to that humans inherited much of what could be called the rule of free love. After the 13th century, however, in one century only this was replaced by a Puritan view of sex that revealed a struggle against sex and love between a man and woman because popes and priests saw sex as an obstacle on their way to power.

Certain prohibitions regarding sex continue in modern-day Western civilization, where people continue to confess the sin of sex and where procreation as opposed to pleasure is the emphasis for many. In fact pleasurable activities with sex were at one time banned during church holidays, fasting days and on Sundays.

Many of the taboos continue. This is in spite of the fact that scientific research shows that sex has considerable health benefits for both men and women. Religion, according to some theorists, has been the rock in the road towards realizing fully those benefits.

Church prohibitions still prescribe specifics about sex and concerns about when and where
it should be practiced. Taboos are present in non-Christian countries as well, some of which came about after the 13th century's boot gave impetus to additional restrictions. That was particularly true in the islands in the Pacific, such as Hawaii, where free and open
relationships sexually were enjoyed.

Some of the strict prohibitions were written into state laws in United States. These are caused significant hardships for some people, according to the Southern Center for Human Rights that filed suit on behalf of Wendy Whitaker who had consensual oral sex with her boyfriend when she was 17 and he was three weeks shy of his 16th birthday. Whitaker was convicted of sodomy in 1997 in the State of Georgia. As a result, she was obliged to register as a sex offender for life, which restricts her job opportunities and housing because she could not live within 1000 feet of schools or churches. The suit came about when
Whitaker was going to be evicted from her home because she had violated the law with respect to sex practices. News about this came in late 2008, reflecting the issues that continue in United States regarding sex.

Russian newspaper reports declare that people should recognize the negative effect of religion on sexual activity and take that into consideration when they decide their personal relationships especially those that involve copulation.  The Pew Research declares many
Christians still maintain taboos as long practice, which can, according to some therapists and Russian reporters, interfere with the real pleasure of sex.

Complications faced by women aging without children.

Older woman, some of whom face aging without children

Women in every country figure higher in their rate of poverty along with longevity, in the United States and other developed countries, that exceeds that of men.  One of the major problems in America is the number of women reaching middle age and older without children who can care for them when they are old.

A Pew Research poll found a few years ago that nearly one in five American women ends her child-bearing years without having had a child.  This compares with one in ten in the 1970's.  What groups show the most significant changes? The Pew Forum found that while childlessness has risen for all racial and ethnic groups, and most education levels, it has fallen the most for women with advanced degrees.Women the most likely not to have a child are those who have degrees beyond the bachelors level.  There was, however, one exceptional year for 2008, when these educated women showed 24% without children in comparison with 31% in 1994. These women were mostly 40 - 44 years of age. The most educated women still are among the most likely never to have had a child.

White women are most likely not to have had a chld by the end of child-bearing years, but the gap is narrowing as childless rates have increased across the board with many groups. Among all women ages 40-44, the proportion that has never given birth, 18% in 2008, has grown by 80% since 1976, when it was 10%. There were 1.9 million childless women ages 40-44 in 2008, compared with nearly 580,000 in 1976. This report is based mainly on data from the June fertility supplement of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey.

The United States is on par with many other nations and higher than others.  For example, the rate of childlessness is 22% in Great Britain 7% for Eastern European countries. 

Why has childlessness rates grown in recent years?  Experts tell us what today the decision is seen as a woman's individual choice.  Women also have better job choices and contraceptive methods.  Furthermore there has been a general trend toward delaying marriage and child-bearing, especially among more educated women.

What happens when this population of women reach retirement and beyond, needing medical care and help with navigating through the problems of aging?  That is the question confounding the experts, especially when the cost of health care is increasing.  It will also mean an increased demand on social service systems.  One of the political issues has to do with the conservative groups that clamor to reduce the safety nets even as more people are poised to need them.

Women's needs in aging are part of the problem social scientists maintain need to be addressed, even as the population itself is in flux.  In 2014 more women who are older are known to be having children, yet the rate of childlessness will surely impact the cost of care and other social issues in the coming years.

Officials concerned about health challenges during government shutdown

[caption id="attachment_20621" align="alignleft" width="300"] IRG activation following pathogen entry[/caption]

Gordon Matilla---Officials are concerned about public health safety during the government shutdown, with the CDC emasculated and programs and services withdrawn for lack of money.  The public health, given the potential of any kind of germ warfare or just the diseases that can make their way around the world, are of particular significance; and without watchful eyes, health issues could be significantly impacted. And as pilgrims return from the Hajj, the pilgrimage to the sacred shrines, officials are concerned about infectious diseases, without sufficient health personnel to intervene in the event of an emergency.  Still the flu season itself brings challenges to health officials who worry about not having sufficient personnel on hand to manage problems this season. Blumenstock, of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, is particularly concerned, mentioning they are significant flu-related functions the CDC cannot currently perform because of the government shutdown.  He said, " “Depending on how bad flu season turns out to be, that could provide increased risk of illness or death if CDC doesn’t get back in business.” At the same time the American Public Health Association has voiced concern about a salmonella outbreak.   In a recent press release the organization observes:

“Diseases do not respect government shutdowns. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had to recall 30 furloughed workers this week to help handle the multi-state outbreak. While I applaud the agency’s decision and quick response, these key staff will now be playing catch-up thanks to the government shutdown.” “In response to the shutdown, the U.S. House of Representatives continues the folly of a piecemeal approach to funding the government. Last week they approved funding for the National Institutes of Health. This week they approved funding for the Food and Drug Administration. Yet they haven’t approved funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, our leading public health agency. Nor have they approved funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is central to the disease investigation."

Occupy Revolution

[caption id="attachment_11559" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="American Revolution gallery - wikimedia commons"][/caption]

Joel S. Hirschhorn - History tells us that it is nearly impossible to know in real time whether some kind of national, grassroots public protest ends up being the beginning of a true revolution against a ruling government system.  This is true for the earliest beginnings of the revolt against the British that produced the successful American Revolution and the creation of the US.  The British at the time surely thought that they could retain power and control.  More recently, the revolts inEgypt, Tunisia and Libya certainly could not be accurately perceived in their earliest stages as likely to topple well established dictatorships wielding incredible and cruel power.  Even now, the rebellious actions in Syria are not widely seen as surely resulting in successful revolution.

My central point is that the Occupy movement in the US offers the possibility of being seen, eventually, as the seed of a successful Second American Revolution, which I and many others believe is desperately needed to fix our corrupt, dysfunctional and unfair government, political and economic system.

What are the main similarities among successful revolutions?

At the beginning of ultimately successful revolutions the focus is almost entirely on what the rebels oppose and only in the most general terms what they want instead.  What rebels are always against is some form of tyranny that takes the form of repressed freedoms and economic pain for most ordinary people.  In other words, it is clear at the beginning what causes citizen anger and passion; what is intolerable and far less on the exact changes in the nation’s political and government system most desired.  Mostly what is being fought for is either a true democracy or a better one, a system where elections are open and free and really matter, where status quo powers can be replaced.  The more you think about it, the more sense it makes for nascent rebels taking great risks to have a single minded focus on what is wrong, unjust, corrupt or just plain evil in order to build wide public support for fighting a powerful, oppressive government.

Second, despite various forms of peaceful protests at the beginning, history tells us that violence usually becomes crucial for successful overthrow of a hated political system.  More pointedly, violence is usually precipitated by violent actions of the existing regime against early peaceful protestors which then causes rebels to also become increasingly violent, even though they may have few weapons to match what the reigning government has.  Relying on civil disobedience alone has rarely been sufficient, with a few notable exceptions.  But even though India and South Africa may come to mind it is easy to forget that violence was practiced by the then reigning governments against protestors and their leaders, especially imprisonment.  That the protestors seeking fundamental reforms do not become citizen armies but nevertheless ultimately become successful in overthrowing oppressive regimes should be seen more as the exception than the rule.  In other words, violence is sometimes one-sided, but still is an essential part of the revolution process, in large part because it motivates not only more widespread public support, but often international support, including economic sanctions, for achieving the central goal of the rebellious protest movement.



Third, what follows successful revolution is usually messy, chaotic and painful, in great measure because entirely new, effective democratic systems must be created to replace what previously was used to implement political and economic injustice.  Even in the case of the American Revolution, it took quite some time to actually create a new government system (including an early constitution that was ultimately deemed a failure and replaced).  Presently, the renewed violence in Egypt by both the military controlled government and the same rebels that overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship testifies to the considerable difficulty in establishing a true functioning and stable democracy. Ditto for what we see in Libya.  And many would say that Russia has not achieved a first class democracy despite the downfall of the Soviet Union.  The point is that it is best to think of two-stage revolutions, beginning with attacking the status quo, oppressive government and second creating a better system to replace it.  Nevertheless, we can conclude at some point that a revolution has been successful, merely on the basis of a successful first stage, letting time tell whether it becomes fully successful.

Apply this thinking to the current Occupy movement in the US.  What can we assess?  First, the Occupy movement has been focused on what is wrong with the US, principally economic injustice, and unfair wealth of the top one percent to the detriment of the 99 percent.  The focus on the terrible actions of the Wall Street, banking and whole financial sector that has wrecked the economy and the failure of government to punish the guilty and truly fix the economic system makes perfect sense.  Economic inequality is the target.  The Occupy movement clearly is against the status quo establishment, political parties that are both controlled by financial interests that manipulate the government and economy to benefit the few.  The Occupy protestors want to replace what they see as a system that no longer serves the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Second, it has become increasingly clear that mostly one-sided violence has emerged, with local police forces using violence and even anti-constitutional means in attempts to kill the Occupy movement.  Civil disobedience has been attacked with violence; free speech has been attacked; media access has often been prevented.  What is most interesting is that, unlike other revolutions around the world, it is not the national government using violence against this protest movement, but rather local police such as that widely seen in New York City.  Mayors seem to have taken the lead in protecting the status quo against the public distrust, dissatisfaction and disgust with the prevailing political and economic system.  Occupy means disrupting, and local governments are fighting back.

Third, even though it certainly is unclear whether the Occupy movement will turn out to be the beginning of a successful two-stage revolution, we cannot rule it out.  It is important to understand that about one-third of the USpopulation has been experiencing great personal pain produced by many failures of the system, including those losing their homes and jobs, those experiencing hunger and poor health care, and those unable to find any financial security despite hard work or incurring debt for college educations. However, the top 20 percent of Americans, not merely the top one percent, or some 60 million Americans are not suffering; they benefit from the corrupt, unfair system.  What is uncertain is whether the Occupy movement can expand its public participation and support to reach a large majority of Americans.

Here is some basis for optimism about the ultimate success of the Occupy movement.

A new report by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project asked Americans if they agreed with the statement “our people are not perfect but our culture is superior to others.” Only 49 percent agreed, compared to 60 percent in 2002, the first time that Pew asked the question.  That shows the malarkey about American exceptionalism, especially from conservatives, is being recognized.  Notably, among young people (those ages 18 to 29), the percentage who believed that their culture was superior was lower than young citizens of Germany, Spain and Britain.

Besides all the findings that Congress only has 9 percent public support, it is even more important to recognize that Americans do not feel very positive about their country. A Time Magazine/Abt SRBI poll conducted last monthfound that 71 percent of Americans believed that our position in the world has declined in the past few years.

Add to this that an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey conducted earlier this month found that beyond current hardships most Americans see their nation at “the start of a longer-term decline where the U.S. is no longer the leading country in the world.”   There is no rational basis for being optimistic about what the president or Congress will accomplish.

There is, in fact, enormous public support for addressing both political dysfunction of the two-party plutocracy, economic inequality, money in politics and a host of other public grievances.

James B. Stewart wrote a timely article An Uprising With Plenty of Potential that offers an optimistic view of the Occupy movement.  And David Carr has also offered an excellent analysis of the future of the movement.  Two leaders of the Occupy movement have also presented an important analysis worth your time, including this view “Occupy was born because we the people feel that our country and our economy are moving precipitously in the wrong direction; that America has evolved into a kind of corporate oligarchic state, a ‘corporatocracy’; and yes, that what is needed is a regime change.”  For a great history of the Occupy movement read this.  The role of the media in the Occupy movement has also been assessed and because I spent time at theOccupy Wall Street activity I know how inaccurate many media reports have been.  The mighty effort at takemoneyout.com is worth supporting as well as numerous efforts to get the first Article V convention.

Every American should use critical thinking to not only follow the Occupy movement but explicitly decide whether it is the seed capable of producing a Second American Revolution that truly reforms what is now a "delusional democracy" with "delusional prosperity."  For sure, voting for or against Democrats or Republicans will not suffice.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All opinion articles are written as the opinions of the author and may or may not be the opinion of the publication.

Religious freedom restricted in 1/3 of the world

[caption id="attachment_7745" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Jew, Catholic nun and Muslim on World Religion Day"][/caption]

Carol Forsloff - While most Americans continue to reinforce the concept of religious freedom and the First Amendment rights of the Constitution, across the rest of the world religious tolerance and freedom have actually declined.

The Pew Forum conducted a three-year study on religious restrictions around the world.   The organization’s research found that 6.9 billion people or nearly a third of the world’s population live in countries where government policies on religion or social hostilities involving religion have increased substantially during the period 2006 -2009.

Illustrations of this growing trend are reflected in government and social policies that have developed in Denmark and France.  France has restricted Muslim women from wearing the burka and school children from wearing clothing that displays religious symbols.  French conservatives view the increasing multiculturalism of France to be a threat to the French way of life.  They point to a major difference in assimilation of Muslims in France and African Americans in the United States and that a lack of shared culture, language and religious belief is largely responsible for the problems France is experiencing with respect to dealing with immigrant groups.

White separatists and right-wing groups have found fertile ground in the stresses of assimilation. Dr. Orly Taitz is specifically directing Europe’s struggles with Muslim groups and tying this to America’s policies with the Middle East while targeting President Barack Obama as being sympathetic to the Muslim causes due to his father’s religious affiliation with Islam.  She uses Denmark’s growing restrictions on Muslims as an example of the risks America faces if it continues to court Middle Eastern favor.

Recently England has faced riots in many sections of its major cities that the media has observed comes primarily from the youth in impoverished areas.  Like Denmark and France, new immigrant youth find it difficult to find jobs in a recession, and many of these same youth do not wish to comply with new traditions in order to assimilate.  US News and World Report pointed out in 2006 the growing problem Europe faces with respect to its immigrant population and the children of those immigrants and wrote:     "Europeans are uncomfortable with Islam, and they see it as an alien body in their midst. ... Europe's got a huge problem, and they're just getting their minds around it now."

These cultural pressures in the middle of economic strife and competition are, according to experts, at the heart of the tensions among population groups, a tension that will likely grow and produce the right wing political growth, religious restrictions and community violence in response.