In 1913, California became the first state to outlaw marijuana. However, in 1996, under the Compassionate Use Act (also known as California’s Proposition 215), California became the first state to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes only. Since then, 13 other states have followed California in legalizing medical marijuana. Recently, the Justice Department stated that people who use medical marijuana or distribute it would not face federal prosecution, as long as they follow state law. This is a big step forward because prior to this, the federal government could press charges because marijuana isn’t legal on a federal level, but just in certain states. Also, this is a big step because it shows that the Obama administration is focusing on more important issues such as the war in Iraq or Healthcare.
Another thing currently happing with marijuana is its drug classification. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act which classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it had no medicinal value and a high potential for abuse. However as we see with the passing of the Compassionate Use Act, this might not be the case anymore, in terms of its medicinal value. The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest physicians organization, recommended that marijuana’s schedule classification be reviewed “for the purpose of facilitating research and the development of cannabinoid-based medicines.”
While the above policies are good news for the medical marijuana world, a new development is emerging in California that is becoming the center for debate for doctors. Doctors have now been prescribing minors who suffer from ADHD medical marijuana. Stephen Hinshaw, the chairman of the psychology department at Berkeley stated in response to this: “How many ways can one say one of the worst ideas of all time?”
While some doctors say medical marijuana is safer than aspirin and Ritalin and helps alleviate symptoms of anxiety and anger, others say the THS in marijuana will just further intensify those with ADHD because it disrupts attention, memory and concentration. A second concern of doctors with prescribing minors medical marijuana is the issue of dependency. One doctor states: “It’s detrimental to adolescents who chronically use it, and if it’s being used medically, that implies chronic use.” A second doctor, Dr. Nora D. Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, describes that risk of dependency is a big issue because dependency is already high among adolescents and people with attention-deficit disorder.” Another possible risk with the use of medical marijuana by minors is the increase risk of psychosis and schizophrenia for those genetically predisposed to those illnesses.
While I support the use of medical marijuana and the legalization of marijuana in general, I have to admit that I am a little uneasy with giving a 14 year old a prescription for medical marijuana. While some research supports use of marijuana in helping those suffering from ADHD, I feel more research needs to be done with minors specifically. Also, while many do not consider marijuana to be an addictive drug, I do agree that minors would be more susceptible to developing a dependency on it.
Last week, pictures of Sammy Sosa, former Chicago Cubs player, from the Latin Grammy awards surfaced, showing his skin to be paler than usual for the Dominican Republican native.
While many people speculated that he had bleached his skin or was suffering from a medical condition, Sammy Sosa defended the pictures by saying his lighter skin color is caused by a European night cream he has been using, as well as camera lights. Former Chicago Cubs employee Rebecca Polihronis stated in Sosa’s defense:
“He's not trying to be Michael Jackson…He is going through a rejuvenation process for his skin. Women have it all of the time. He was surprised he came out looking so white. I thought it was a body double. Part of [the photo appearance] is just the lighting. He was doing a dermatological skin process after years and years [of playing baseball] in the sun.”
However, some dermatologists are skeptical of Polihronis’ explanation. Dr. Jonith Breadon, a practicing dermatologist in Chicago said it was unlikely that such a skin rejuvenation process (such as a chemical peel or laser treatment) would have lightened his skin evenly. While she describes that there can be accidental effects of such rejuvenation procedures, patients with darker skin would more likely end up with darker patches of skin. Other critics suggest that his lighter skin color could be the result of steroid use, since he tested positive in 2003.
In an interview with the Univision Spanish Network, Sammy Sosa himself states: "It's a bleaching cream that I apply before going to bed and whitens my skin some. It's a cream that I have, that I use to soften [my skin], but has bleached me some. I'm not a racist, I live my life happily.”
While both Sammy Sosa’s and Rebecca’s Polihronis explanations are possible, one must also consider that in these pictures Sammy Sosa is also wearing green colored contact lenses. Thus the question is, is Sammy Sosa really trying to improve his skin care regime, or is he suffering from what is called a “color complex?” A color complex is when those of color believe they will become more popular and more widely excepted if they adopt more “white” features. Dawn Turner Trice, of the Chicago Tribune’s Exploring Race blog, writes:
"The reason Sosa is in the spotlight is because he appears to be yet another brown person unhappy in his skin. He says that's not true. But in the photos, Sosa's eyes appear lighter and his hair straighter. It does make you wonder…."
This color complex has become an issue not just for the late Michael Jackson, or possibly for Sammy Sosa, but is a huge issue in India. In India, the cosmetic industry is making millions of dollars selling skin-whitening products to women. In addition, recently, such companies are targeting their product towards men as well, convincing men through its advertisements that light skin will make you more appealing and successful at work. This desire for whiter skin comes from their Hinduism’s complex social hierarchy, in which those in the upper class had paler skin than those in the lower class; it is thought that if you have a pale skin, you are from a family of higher class because they did not have to do any outside labor, in which the sun would have made your skin darker. Indian women take this drive to become paler to the extreme by even eating saffron or powdered gold when pregnant in hopes of it making their children lighter. Also, parents who are seeking brides for their sons in newspapers write in the description that they are looking for “fair” or “very fair-skinned” girls.
While it remains unclear the cause for Sammy Sosa’s lighter skin, it would be very unfortunate if it was because he was uncomfortable in his own skin.
One in seven people in the world go to bed hungry. That translates into 1.02 billion people (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/22food.html?scp=8&sq=genetically%20modified%20food&st=cse). The reason is a worldwide food shortage. The question now is, what can be done to fix this. How can we better deliver food to the hungry and how can food be grow in developing countries most effectively at affordable prices? The solution is genetically modified crops. As of 2000, thirteen countries grew genetically modified crops, with 68% of total crops grown by U.S. farmers alone. While many environmental and public interest groups are against genetically modified crops, the world cannot rule out a possible solution to world hunger.
The current food shortage is due to the global financial recession, soaring food prices and grain shortages. A second problem is climate change due to global warming, which makes it more difficult to grow crops, especially in countries that need it the most, the sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In addition, scarce farmland has become a challenge. Land is either already under cultivation (thus less is available to buy) or over-cultivated (thus not producing as many crops as possible). Additional challenges facing landowners include the scarcity of water, the increasing price of fertilizers and other necessary tools and the demand for the use of land for oil and biofuels. As a result of food shortages there have been violent food riots, in places such as Cameroon, Egypt, Haiti and Thailand, increasing pressure on governments and world-wide hunger.
This is where genetically modified crops come into the picture. These crops are created for human and/or animal consumption and are modified in laboratories using molecular biology techniques. The main goal of these crops is to enhance desired traits in crops. There are two ways this can be done. One way is to transfer the gene from one plant to another For example, scientists today have been able to isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and then insert that gene into a different plant whose environment may be suffering from a drought. A second method is to transfer the gene from a non-plant organism to a plant. For example, scientists have been able to insert an anti-freeze gene found in cold-water fish into tobacco and potato crops.
Genetically modified crops will address world hunger because of its many proposed benefits. Scientists are able to locate the genes for pest resistance, disease resistance, cold tolerance, drought tolerance and nutrition, which they can then insert into crops to grow developing countries. Thus, more than ever, this is the most practical solution to stop world hunger. Unlike other solutions, genetically modified crops offers a permanent solution, rather than a temporary one. As Philip J. Crowley, a department spokesman, states, “We are trying to shift away from emergency aid toward agricultural development” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/21crop.html).
In other words, the world needs to spend time focusing on evolving agriculture. The global population will only continue to grow. Thus, the more we can grow on the land we have already, the better off we are. Although genetically modified crops may not fully solve the entire food shortage in the world, it brings us one step closer. In these times, we can’t fear science. We have to embrace it and its benefits.
Currently, under the Compassionate Use Act (also known as California’s Proposition 215), which was approved in 1996 with 55.6% of the votes, patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other diseases and pain were allowed to grow and possess the drug for their ailment. To do so, they just had to get a “medical marijuana card” prescribed from his or her doctor. A big issue for the upcoming 2010 election is a ballot that would legalize marijuana. If such a ballot was passed, California would benefit immensely from legalizing marijuana. Marijuana, which is California’s biggest cash crop, would bring in extra revenue from taxation and tourists visiting California just for the marijuana. Also, the marijuana industry might even decrease California’s unemployment rate.
While there are many benefits to legalizing Marijuana, the Los Angeles times wrote a very interesting article on the impact of growing of medical marijuana on small towns which I wanted to share, because it gave a different perspective on the legalization and growing of marijuana. This article focused on Trinity County, which was called “Northern California’s pot paradise” by High Times magazine. Trinity County only has 14,000 residents and has no traffic lights, freeways or even parking meters. This place is a hotbed for growing medical marijuana because of its climate, which is very warm and dry. Currently, lots sell for around $50,000, in which there are 10,000 marijuana plants growing. Farmers are very protective of their lots, often guarding them with electric fences, dogs and even have been known to threaten trespassers with guns.
Although Trinity County only has 14,000 residents, the huge growth of medical marijuana has affected its residents and safety. For example, the football practice at the local high school had to be moved because of the marijuana odor outside. Also, the sheriff’s department has been busy fighting organized crime, closing illegal sites, arresting laborers and collected 400,000 illegal plants. The Sheriff’s Department stated that they have spent nearly $1 million dollars removing 29,085 pounds of debris (fertilizer, irrigation pipes, pesticides, and so forth) from abandoned marijuana farms.
Thus, while the growing of medical marijuana brings many benefits to California, and will bring more if legalized, I don’t think people realize the possible consequences of growing throughout California. Even though I support the legalization of marijuana, I think we need to be careful and realize the potential impact on towns throughout California.
There’s a saying by William Gladstone that goes “justice delayed is justice denied.” While in most civil rights cases, this holds true - the faster we are to act, the faster we will have results we desire - for homosexual marriage, the reverse may be the best course of action – “justice delayed is justice granted.”
If we look at the news today, a very interesting thing is happening. Gay rights activists groups are actually in disagreement about gay rights. Many groups, led by Yes on Equality!, are eager to overturn Prop 8 in the November 2010 election. Yes on Equality is fighting to repeal Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution, the “California Marriage Equality Act.” As of now, the article reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Yes Equality’s proposed California ballot initiate would have this section removed.
However, other groups, led by Equality California, don’t believe California is ready yet to repeal Prop 8. While I am a strong advocate for gay rights and legalizing same-sex marriage and admire the enthusiasm of Yes on Equality! I agree with the activist group Equality-LA in waiting until the 2012 election to overturn Prop 8. It is just too risky and costly to rush such a crucial moment in California’s history.
In the 2008 election, both sides spent a total of $81 million dollars campaigning for Prop 8. In the end, 52% voted Yes on Prop 8 and 48% voted No on Prop 8. There are many reasons why waiting until 2012 is the best course of action to win the battle over same-sex marriage.
There are three major reasons that California should repeal Prop 8 in 2012 as opposed to 2010. First, we must wait for financial reasons. Due to the economic recession, all social and political groups are feeling the effects of less money in their pockets. As a result, less people are able to donate money to organizations that fight for LGBT rights. Thus, it is logical to wait two more years to raise enough funds.
Secondly, before we can convince others to vote for same-sex marriage, we need to focus on internal organization. Not only do we need full support from the entire LGBT community, but include our allies and make them pledge their support, financially and volunteering.
Once we have financial support and a strong coalition of allies, we can finally turn to the gathering the support of others who voted Yes on Prop 8 in 2008. It is crucial in this aspect to win over the support of religious groups, conservative groups and communities of color, who statistically tended to vote Yes on Prop 8. However, it is not so easy to convince these groups to repeal Prop 8 if they voted for yet just a year ago. Thus, waiting until 2010 will give us the extra time needed to win over more supporters.
What is the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy? In the simplest sense it is the federal policy regarding homosexuals serving in the U.S Military. The “don’t tell” part of the policy states that anyone who demonstrates the will to engage in homosexual acts is not allowed to serve in the armed forces; this includes disclosing his or her sexual orientation openly. The “don’t ask” part of the policy states that superiors in the military should refrain from questioning or investigating a service member’s orientation if they are behaving correctly. This policy was first introduced in 1993 and approved by Bill Clinton as a compromise since he believed all citizens regardless of sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military. Before this, only heterosexuals could participate in the armed forces. In the New York Times, then president Clinton stated in defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:”
Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.
Recently in the news, President Obama was a speaker at a gala dinner hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. In his speech, he pledged to end the current military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He even went as far as to say he would do his best to undo the law that prevents federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. While his speech seemed promising to many, people were still skeptical of President Obama’s promises since he did not provide a timetable or in the past year has been more talk, and less action. However, some of Obama’s recent actions show some promise. He has appointed some gays and lesbians to his administration team and promised to sign into law a bill, named after Matthew Shepard, that would expand the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays. So hopefully, President Obama will hold true to his promises and be a strong advocate for equality for all.
There are many reasons why Prop 8 passed and there are just as many reasons why stem research doesn’t have the full support it needs. However, perhaps the biggest culprit in both cases has been religion. To be clear, I don’t mean all religions or all degrees of religion are at fault, but I am focusing more specifically fundamentalist religions. Regardless if it is Christian fundamentalism or Islam fundamentalism, there is something about fundamentalism in general, a common thread between all fundamentalist religions that prevents progress in many aspects of society. In terms of gay marriage, I define progress as voting for marriage equality for all and for stem cell research I define progress as the government providing the necessary financial support for research. Fundamentalism is most often characterized by its strict accordance to religious principles and scripture. For fundamentalist religions, its text or scripture, may it be the Bible, Torah or Koran, is considered to them as the word of God, thus must be followed, obeyed and not altered. While ancient text may have been more applicable hundreds or thousands of years ago, today there are a lot of conflicts and contradictions modern life presents in comparison with ancient text. However despite these discrepancies, most often fundamentalists don’t change their views to adapt to modern life, which in the end proves to be detrimental to society because it prohibits change for the better.
Ask any woman on birth control and I’m sure she would agree that birth control is one of the best inventions out there for us.
Yes there is the obvious reason why. But people who are not even sexually active love birth control just as much for its health benefits (studies show that it can reduce risks of cancer, ease cramps, clear one’s skin) and the magic ability to control your period.
Birth control was first introduced in 1960 and since then has “revolutionized contraception.” While there are so many options out there now for women for birth control from the pill to the patch to the ring to the shot, “almost half of all pregnancies are unintended” in the United States, according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention.
What is the reason for this discrepancy?
One reason is insurance. According to an article in the New York Times, “nearly a third of women who start a new type of birth control stop within a year” because of changes in one’s insurance. Birth control isn’t cheap. It can range from $10 to $30 for a month’s supply, multiplying that by 12 months, comes out to be between $120 to $360 a month. While I can afford that, a lot of people can’t. Also, these prices can vary depending on one’s health insurance coverage or lack of coverage.
A second reason is religion. According to the journal Reproductive Health, researchers have proven a strong correlation between the teenage birth rate of a state to its level of religiosity. Their results show that “The more religious the state, the higher the rates of teen pregnancy.” One of their explanations for this finding is the lack of sex education, or sex-abstinence education. Regardless of how successful religious communities are in discouraging sexual intercourse, the problem is they are not educating teenagers about using contraception, and if anything discourage the use of contraception. According to the study: “We conjecture that conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.”
Moral of the story: Birth control and other methods of contraception not only provide many health benefits but can help decrease the number of teenager pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies in general. However, to do so, the use of contraception needs to be supported from all communities, regardless of one’s religiosity, and taught in the classroom. And I think another thing we have to realize, is that it is never too early to start educating children on contraception. Below is an excerpt from a parenting blog on the New York Times:
A while ago I ordered some birth control for myself and my husband. When the box arrived, it included a freebie: a pack of 50 candy-colored condoms. I was about to throw them away, but after an internal debate that seemed at once to encompass every attitude, preconception, goal and belief I have about parenting, I took the bag and put it on the very top shelf of the cupboard in the kids’ bathroom.
A few months later, I heard a shriek of horror. I ran in to find my kids staring aghast at the bag of condoms.
I smiled shakily, “At some point in the very distant future, you’ll be having sex. And you’ll need protection.”
“God, Mom,” my daughter said, turning her back and stalking out of the room …. “That is so gross.”
Over the summer, my friend and I planned to see a comedy show at the UCB theater on Franklin Ave in Los Angeles. However, we had about an hour to kill so we started walking around and noticed that directly across the street was the Scientology Celebrity Center. I have always driven past it so this was my first time getting a good look at it right in person. Since we had time to kill and were so curious about this huge building, we walked onto the property and looked around its surrounding gardens.
However shortly, a security guard on bicycle asked us to leave, but said we could go inside if we were interested in a tour of the place. We both thought, why not? We walked inside and it was magnificent and huge; it looked like an upscale, royal hotel.
We met with a tour guide who sat us down and told his life story. Basically, this guy was from New York and came to Los Angeles to become an actor. However, he had trouble finding work so he found a job at the Scientology Celebrity Center. After a few months of working here and studying scientology, he said his life improved so much. He got a raise and was making triple the amount he used to make, his IQ increased and he met his soul mate, who also worked at the center and after 2 months proposed to her. Perhaps, the strangest part was how he explained that after taking dianetics sessions, which I will explain later, he was able to fully recall his child birth….I am not joking. He had called up his mother even and recited the events. So once we heard his life story, which definitely made my friend and I very very skeptical about this person and scientology in general, he spent time talking about what scientology was. According to their website, scientology is:
The Scientology religion encompasses all life and provides practical solutions to every facet of existence. Its end goal is total spiritual freedom. More than a system of belief, Scientology is an applied religion that plays a vital role in both the lives of its congregation and the community at large. It brings spiritual enlightenment to man by way of religious practices that advance him to higher states of spiritual ability and understanding, while providing practical solutions to every facet of day-to-day living.
Although it was hard to take this guy seriously, the way he went about teaching us was very effective. He asked us to list some common preconceptions of scientology, in which he would then explain why it was incorrect. So below, I will list some of the things my friend and I came up with, and how our tour guide proved them to be wrong, or kind of did.
1.Myth #1: Scientology believes in Aliens.
Eh, kind of. Our tour guide explained that the only real reason people associate aliens with scientology are because the founder, L. Ron Hubbard was first a science fiction writer before he founded scientology. L. Ron Hubbard has written over 138 science fiction and adventure novels and other pulp fiction. I looked on line at the official scientology website and couldn’t find anything about aliens. However, when I looked at other websites, it described how there are secret teachings about aliens once one has achieved a higher level of initiation. Below is an excerpt from wikipedia about confidential materials:
Among these advanced teachings is the story of Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating body thetans and neutralizing their ill effects.
2.Myth #2: Scientology is anti-medicine and psychology
True. Scientologists believe in dianetics, rather than pharmaceutical drugs and psychiatry. According to their website:
Dianetics comes from the Greek words dia (through) and nous (soul). Dianetics could be said to be what the soul is doing to the body. It provides answers to the fundamental riddles of the mind with a thoroughly validated method that increases sanity, intelligence, confidence and well-being. It gets rid of the unwanted sensations, unpleasant emotions and psychosomatic ills that block one’s life and happiness. Dianetics rests on basic principles that can be easily learned and applied by any reasonably intelligent person — as millions have. It is the route to a well, happy, high-IQ human being. Dianetics addresses the part of the mind that operates below the conscious level, exerting a hidden influence that causes you to react irrationally, say and do things that “aren’t you,” and have inexplicable emotions and ills that hold back intelligence and ability. It all resolves with Dianetics.
Our tour guide explained to us that they are anti-psychology and anti-psychiatry because in most causes it does more harm than good because people abuse pharmaceutical drugs and it is inhumane. The president of the church of scientology states:
What the Church opposes are brutal, inhumane psychiatric treatments. It does so for three principal reasons: 1) procedures such as electro-shock, drugs and lobotomy injure, maim and destroy people in the guise of help; 2) psychiatry is not a science and has no proven methods to justify the billions of dollars of government funds that are poured into it; and 3) psychiatric theories that man is a mere animal have been used to rationalize, for example, the wholesale slaughter of human beings in World Wars I and II.
3.Myth #3: Scientology is a cult
Eh, it’s debatable. According to the official scientology website, scientology is a religion. It states:
Scientology meets all three criteria generally used by religious scholars when examining religions: (1) a belief in some Ultimate Reality, such as the Supreme Being or eternal truth that transcends the here and now of the secular world; (2) religious practices directed toward understanding, attaining or communicating with this Ultimate Reality; and (3) a community of believers who join together in pursuing the Ultimate Reality.
4.Myth #4: Scientology believe in silent births
True. Scientologists believe in silent births because they want to create the most peaceful environment for a child to enter the world in. The tour guide explained how if a baby comes into this world hearing the doctor shouting “push, push” they will lead a chaotic life and will be always pushing him or herself.
Hanging out and talking to a tour guide at the Scientology Celebrity Center was perhaps one of the most interesting things I have ever done. Personally, it was hard to take everything he said seriously. However, the frightening part was that he was very convincing. Thus, I can see how other people who are more vulnerable or need guidance in their life would be susceptible to giving in to scientology.
Technically speaking, I am a Native American Jew/Mormon. And I’m pretty sure there aren’t too many of us out there. Native American Jew is one thing, but a Native American Mormon? Those are pretty rare. So how did this all happen? How did I manage to be aNavajo, raised Jewish with a Bat Mitzvah and with a huge family that resides in Utah? I’d say my mom is the one responsible. She is full Navajo and was born in Paige, Arizona. However, as the 7th child to a nomadic family, she was put up for adoption as a newborn. She was adopted by Ellis and Ora Larson, a husband and wife from St. George, Utah. Seems pretty normal so far, right? Well Mr. and Mrs. Larson were Mormon, thus before adopting my mother, already had seven children of their own. Even at the age of 50, Ora Larson was ready to adopt and bring into her home another child, my mother. There in Utah, she was raised in a Mormon family. However, at the age of 21, my mother was ready to get out of there, which I don’t blame her. St. George is basically a red dirt desert with too many Wal-Marts. At that age, she was way behind of the typical Mormon tendencies….getting married in the Temple and popping out babies. So she left for Los Angeles; she moved from a town of 10,000 to a metropolitan city of 3,000,000 full of booze, homosexuals, and Hollywood…terrifying any Mormon mother. In Los Angeles, she enrolled as an undergrad at UCLA (I apologize, but unfortunately my whole family is of Bruin descent) where she eventually met my father, a Jew from Redlands, California with only one sibling. At this point, my mother had abandoned her Mormon upbringing and was fine with raising me Jewish. I had the Bat Mitzvah, went to Hebrew school and went to services….only for the important holidays of course.
While I love my family in Utah, since that was the family was I raised with, I am, no offense, relieved to have skipped out on growing up Mormon. I have two cousins my age, who are both married already and pregnant with their first child and I just can’t imagine myself doing that any time soon. Mormons live a completely different lifestyle, one that is hard to understand by many.
As the first African-American president of the United States, Barack Obama is naturally one of the most well known public figures in America. Obama, to some, may also be considered one of the most popular public intellectuals of our time. While some of this can be attributed to his respected views and speeches on current issues, a big chunk of his popularity as a public intellectual is due to the successful marketing and branding of his 2008 presidential campaign. Voting for Obama quickly became the “it” thing to do among new voters and wearing a shirt with his face on it became the new Hollywood trend. Regardless of the fabricated Obama hype, Barak Obama does remain a public intellectual worth listening to, even if you do not agree with everything he may say.
In June 2006, Obama, then senator of Illinois, delivered his “Call to Renewal” speech to an evangelical audience about his own personal religious beliefs and doubts, and about the role of faith in a pluralistic country. In the beginning of his speech, he discussed the problem America has with the finding the right balance of faith in politics:
For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today … is between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
This excerpt from Obama’s speech touches on one of the longest on-going issues in the history of the United States - the separation of Church and State, or in my eyes, the lack thereof. As Peter Beinart of The New Republic argues:
What these (and most other) liberals are saying is that the Christina Right sees politics through the prism of theology, and there’s something dangerous in that. And they’re right. It’s fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them – as much as possible – in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. …In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can’t be theological.
I myself am a strong supporter of keeping religion and politics separate from each other; partly because I am not religious, but also because I believe politics should not be based on the Bible or the word of God, and rather on facts and concrete evidence. In examining past and recent history, the line separating church and state has become blurred. One reason for this is pretty simple; the majority of people in the United States are religious, thus probably don’t oppose blurring the line of separation as much as I do. Another reason for the blurring of church and state is that most of our public leaders and public intellectuals have come from a religious background. This point is discussed by Stephen Mack in his article “The Wicked Paradox Redux Again.”
American democracy has always depended on public figures—and public intellectuals—whose work has been animated by strong faith. Billy Graham’s efforts to promote racial harmony during the 1950s, and Reinhold Neibuhr’s work for economic justice throughout his career come quickly to mind.
One of these public intellectuals that Stephen Mack describes is our current president. As a person of faith, it is not Obama’s mission to keep the Church and State completely separated. Instead he hopes to achieve a balance between faith and politics in our pluralistic and largely religious country. He explains:
And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.
However, as a politician and public intellectual advocating for a peaceful union of faith and politics, Obama is careful in choosing his words; he does not want to turn away supporters by being too radical with his message. He balances out his message by acknowledging the religious diversity in the United States:
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
In the end, while I do consider Barack Obama to be a public intellectual and I respect the majority of his views, he does not have my support on reconciling faith and politics. I understand that a majority of Americans are religious and thus do support bringing faith into politics, however many current issues we face today are the result of religion mixing with politics.
I have lived in Los Angeles my whole life and currently attend USC. I am a Communication major at Annenberg and Communication Design minor at Roski School of Fine Arts. I have always been interested in and frustrated by religion so I hope to use this blog to discuss the conflicts that arise from religion.
