Extra Credit: Response to NY Times Religion Articles

As part of my World Religions class, we had the opportunity for extra credit by writing a one-page response to religion articles in The New York Times. Yes, I know, I didn't really need to underline it, but since I'm about to post a class assignment on here, I thought I would try to be academically correct. Anywho, for those of you who have read the NY Times will know that being a crazy Northern liberal newspaper (it's not really, but what kind of blogger would I be if I didn't jokingly stereotype) it doesn't always have the most favorable view of any religion. That being said, that's why writing these articles were fun.

So this long little post contains my responses to 3 different articles on religion. They're short and maybe not be all that intellectual, just opinionated. Here's a link to each one: 1, 2, 3.

“Catholic Bishops Urge Campaign for Religious Freedom” by Laurie Goodstein 

            It seems lately the Catholic Church has been plagued with problem after problem. In Austria, clergy and laity are openly dissident and challenging the Church’s teaching against married and women priests. In the Philippines, Catholic Bishops are fighting a Reproductive Health Bill that would cause the government to fund for the widespread use of contraceptives and so-called “family planning” devices, as part of its national population policy. And in the United States, Catholics are fighting for religious freedom. As stated in the article by Laurie Goodstein, many Catholics believe that their right to practice their religion according to their consciences is being infringed upon, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at the forefront of “’great national campaign’ to defend religious liberty”.

            It is interesting to note that many people think that the Catholic Church is only acting in response to a recent mandate by the Department of Health and Human Services that requires all employers to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients in their insurance plans, regardless of religious affiliation or conscience. But, as the article states, this is not true. In fact, this galvanizing effort to unite Catholics is a result of many other violations of religious freedom. Critics of the Church argue that the Bishops are simply trying to fight the current Democratic administration, while others say that the Church is trying to assert their religious views, particularly in regards to abortion, on the government and others. I agree with the article that neither of these arguments are the case. This is not a Republican Catholic issue; it is a fundamental American right issue. I believe that if such actions were taken by a Republican administration, the Church would oppose them just as vehemently. The 1^st Amendment guarantees a right for the free exercise of religion. How does forcing Catholic employers, such as colleges and hospitals, to pay for elective reproductive health procedures (abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc.), which is in direct contradiction to the Catholic faith, constitute a free exercise of the faith? My American Constitutional Development class has taught me that when the government does act in violation of any religion, it does so only with a compelling state interest. I think what all people must realize is that the mandate by the HHS has no compelling interest. Abortion, with the exception of emergency cases where the mother is in danger, is an inherently elective procedure, as are the use of contraceptives and sterilization. Yet, Catholic employers will be required to cover such procedures with little to no co-pay. It is an infringement of 1^st Amendment rights. Furthermore, this fight is not about abortion, as many critics say. The Church is not trying to force the government to make abortion illegal, or overturn existing rulings on the subject. It is simply stating that it should not be forced to violate the teachings of their faith and their conscience. What the article does not state, and what many do not realize, is that the Catholic Church is not the only faith with an interest in this fight. Many other faiths have joined the Church, voicing their opinions on these violations of religious freedom. While the Catholic Church may be the most vocal, I firmly believe that all Americans are directly threatened by the violations of religious freedom. The right to the free exercise of religion is paramount in this country, and is also one of the very original reasons for the colonization of this particular part of the continent. As a Catholic and as an American, I firmly stand with the Catholic Church in this issue. And in typical Catholic fashion, with our love for all things Latin, audemus jura nostra defendere: we dare to defend our rights.

 

“General Orders Review of Military Schools After Class is Told U.S. is at War With Islam” by John H. Cushman, Jr.

 

            I think it is safe to say that general American views and opinions on Islam have become increasingly hostile and negative, especially after September 11. I have heard it said that Islam is an inherently violent religion. Luckily for us in World Religions, we are slightly more educated and are much more appreciative. Which is why articles such as the one written by Mr. Cushman are particularly disturbing, not for its style, but its subject. According to the article, a class called Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism taught at the Armed Forces Staff College has been accused of saying “‘that the United States is at war with Islam, and we ought to just recognize that we are at war’”.

            Now while I would like to believe that colleges are slightly more educated than that, I do not find this article all that surprising. At the risk of sounding anti-establishment, I would posit that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly related to the increasing vilification of a religion that we have learned and studied to be a religion that is inherently about love and peace. Of course, my opinions on war have nothing to do with this, and I am grateful for the Armed Forces and pray always for peace. Unfortunately, these negative views are not only the fault of Americans, but also the fault of Islamic radicals, whose extreme and hate-filled views do not accurately reflect Islam or the majority of Muslims. Even Christianity has its own unfortunate share of extreme radicals that do not represent all true Christians. However, that is a discussion for another time. I think that the Armed Forces should have been more careful and educated in its teaching, which is why I appreciate the response by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Such negative views of Islam are dangerous enough when held by ordinary citizens, and all the more dangerous when held by those in the Armed Forces. Islam has always been about love and peace, much like Christianity. It would do well for all people to learn that.

 

“Georgetown Faculty Latest to Chide Ryan” by Laurie Goodstein

   I chose this particular article since it directly speaks to an issue that I mentioned in the first article. Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Chairman of the House Budget Committee and proclaimed Catholic, recently authored a fiscal budget bill that aims to reduce government funding of antipoverty programs such as food stamps in an effort to reduce the size of the current U.S. debt. Now while his proposed budget plan could be seen as problematic on its own, Rep. Ryan has said that this plan has been largely influenced by his understanding of Catholic social teaching. Of course, it has drawn much criticism from the Church.

            I think anyone, especially those in the public eye, should always tread carefully when they say something is consistent with teachings of the Catholic Church. When someone does so, they make themselves out to be an expert in those teachings; and when they are wrong, such as Rep. Ryan, it only serves to further skew an already predominant misconception of the Catholic faith. As I stated in an earlier response, the Catholic Church is not a partisan entity, it operates only with regards to its teachings and conscience. The Church will always stand against actions and statements that are inconsistent with its doctrines, whether those actions and statements are Republican, Democratic, Independent, or affiliated with any other political party. As the article states, the criticisms of Catholic leaders, now including those of faculty at the Jesuit Georgetown University, in response to Rep. Ryan and his budget plan are made regardless of the fact that he is a Republican. I think this is particularly important, especially in light of the Church’s stance against certain actions of the current administration, since the Church has been accused of “being an arm of the Republican Party”. Again, as I have concluded from my own thoughts and conscience, I stand with the Church in this regard. Rep. Ryan’s budget plan, though admirable in its attempt to alleviate the debt, is misguided at best, especially if it claims to be influenced by Catholic social justice teaching. The Catholic Church has always stood up for the impoverished and disadvantaged. And it has a responsibility that speak out against those who would claim otherwise, whether they were Republican or not, and even whether they are Catholic or not. In light of Rep. Ryan’s response, however, I disagree with the wording of some of the criticisms against him, particularly those that claim that he is more a follower of Ayn Rand, an atheist and objectivist, rather than the Church. Such comments on the part of Catholics, I think, are inappropriate, and more care should be given when making them. I also think that now would be a good time to state that while I defend and stand with the Church in general, I do not necessarily stand with individual Catholics. A good example of this, as stated in the article, is the comment of Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky that Pres. Obama “‘is following a similar path’ to Hitler and Stalin”. This I do not agree with. Regardless of my views of the current administration, comparing anyone to two of history’s most disliked figures is horribly inappropriate and wrong, and a leader of the Church should know better. However, I am digressing.

            I think this article states the problem of any one individual speaking with authority on the teachings of any one faith. No, I do not agree with Rep. Ryan’s proposed budget plan, even though I am Republican. What I do not agree with more is his claim that such a budget plan is consistent with Catholic social doctrine because it is simply not. And it is the responsibility and duty of the Church and Catholic leaders, with appropriateness and love, to defend itself and its teachings against those who attempt to claim contradictory and incorrect teachings in its name.