Throughout the years people all over the worlds have seen the rise and fall of leaders. Many men who promised to bring change, but failed, or to defend their countries, but didn’t live up to the standards of the world. And over the years the names of some of these leaders have made headlines or even in some textbooks, while others still leave this world to be forgotten.
And then there are those, who humbly come to serve. Those men and women who don’t want to make their lives about them, but instead about spreading the message of love and hope to the kings and queens and the poorest of the poor. These are the people that leave an impression in our hearts that will never leave; left to be remembered forever.
Today, the late Pope John Paul II, or shall I say Blessed Pope John Paul II was beatified in a beautiful mass in St. Peter’s Square in front of close to 2 million people.
As a Catholic myself, I can speak for Catholics all over the world when I say that although I never personally spoke to Blessed Pope John Paul, he was like a father figure to me. When he died in 2005, I felt like I lost a member of my family. He truly revolutionized the world, just not for Catholics, but for those who do not believe as well.
My heart is filled with joy to know that my beloved Pope John Paul is one step closer to being canonized as an “official” Saint. In fact for those who may not know, the process of beatification is supposed to start at least five years after the person being considered dies. But current pope, Pope Benedict XVI, did away with that rule after Blessed Pope John Paul died. In fact, his process for beatification began just weeks after his death. In order to begin this process, a certain number of miracles have to be proven. In this particular case, several were, including a Nun, Sister Samone- Pierre, who was miraculously cured of Parkinson’s disease. The same illness Blessed Pope John Paul suffered from.
The wonderful, heaven-sent miracles that are attributed to Blessed Pope John Paul’s intercession, only scratch the surface of how God has used this man to truly make a difference in this world for the better. Our world would truly not be the same, if it were not for this Godly man with a love for Jesus and Our Blessed Mother Mary.
Blessed Pope John Paul II exemplified the qualities of a true leader. He did what no president, dictator, king or queen could ever do. His sole mission was to love. And love can be a very powerful tool to spread peace, especially if its God’s love, through His holy word, that you are trying to spread.
As pope he visited 129 countries, to try and help those in need. He was the first practicing pope ever to visit Mexico, the White House, and the UK where he met with Queen Elizabeth II. He went to impoverished countries like India, Haiti, El Salvador and Uganda. He met the poorest of the poor with love and encouraged them to grow in their faith with God and pushed the wealthy to create a better quality of life for those less fortunate.
He brought the message of unity to everyone around the world. He urged Christians, Jews and Muslims to work together for peace. But he didn’t just talk the walk, he actually lived out his message. In 2000 he became the first Pope to visit Jerusalem’s Western Wall and referred to the Jewish people as the Christian people’s “Older brothers in faith.”
He was also credited by many for the falling of the Berlin Wall, urging leaders to break the oppression of those suffering under Communism.
Perhaps one of the greatest qualities of Blessed Pope John Paul II was his love for the youth. In a time when many young people were leaving the church and being “forgotten,” Blessed Pope John Paul II made it a point to encourage the youth to use their gifts and talents to spread Jesus Christ’s Good News to the world for the next generation, what he called the New Evangelization. He began what is called World Youth Day, which still goes on today. The first youth day took place in 1984. They happen all over the world every four years. The next one will be this upcoming August in Madrid, Spain. During this time millions of young Catholics from around the world gather to pray, sing and Praise the Lord Jesus Christ through Eucharistic adoration.
Not only did he display a love for the youth, but through his actions he preached forgiveness. In 1981 a Turkish man attempted to assassinate Blessed Pope John Paul II in St. Peters Square by shooting him three times. Blessed Pope John Paul nearly died, but by the grace of God and protection from above he survived. That same year he visited the man who tried to kill him, in his prison cell. When the man asked, “Why aren’t you dead?” Blessed Pope John Paul replied, “that His Blessed Mother Mary, Jesus Mother, protected him.” The assassination attempt had occurred on the Feast Day of Our Lady of Fatima (a day to honor the Mary, Jesus’ Mother). He knew She was there with him. The Turkish man told Blessed Pope John Paul II that he was afraid that Our Lady of Fatima would harm him for what he had tried to do to the Pope. But Blessed Pope John Paul II assured him to not be afraid, that the Blessed Mother loves everyone and would never hurt him. But what he did next would change the man’s life forever. Blessed Pope John Paul II told the man that he came to forgive him and then embraced him. Blessed Pope John Paul II held no anger towards the man who tried to kill him.
I don’t know of many so-called leaders that could hold this amount of love and forgiveness for someone who tried to hurt them.
Blessed Pope John Paul II exemplified the qualities, and was, a man of integrity, virtue, holiness, forgiveness, strength, courage and most of all, love. He led the Catholic Church with the firm understanding and love for Christ. And he led the world into a better understanding of what it means to be a true follower a Christ.
There will never be anyone like Blessed Pope John Paul II again, but he will continue to live on in our hearts. May we remember his love for all human life in every kind act we do and use him as an inspiration to grow closer to Christ and Our Blessed Mother Mary.
“Be not afraid!” Said Blessed Pope John Paul II. May we have the courage to live out love like this brave man of God did. And may future leaders religious or not, follow his example.
In the loving words of My Beloved Papa, “Totus Tuus Maria.”
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
I'll take a healthier alternative please!
Soda and social networking don’t make a healthy combination.
Two days ago Pepsi Co. announced it’s version of the “Social Vending System,” in which people buy a soda from the vending machine and then “gift” a friend through typing in their name, cell number and personalized message into the machine. The text message will then be sent out to the intended recipient with a code and instructions to redeem a free soda at any other state of the art Pepsi Social Vending system.
It’s no secret that soda is not good for us and with the rising number of obesity in this country it’s no doubt that this new “state of the art” Pepsi machine is just continuing the cycle of obesity, which kills over 100,000 people a year. The Pepsi Co. needs to come up with a healthier alternative to bring in more profit. I know it sounds like an oxymoron- buy a soda and get something healthy, but hey, it’s a start.
It’s better for Pepsi to take the “healthy” route and try to incorporate some sort of healthy incentive to buy their products, rather than just start a cycle of buying soda after soda. This world already sees enough diabetes, cavities and other problems due to being overweight, the least this soda company can due is use this new vending machine to contribute to the improvement of our world, rather than help create more health problems through their products.
I’ve come up with some “healthier” alternatives that can still help Pepsi increase revenue, while still helping customers live better lives.
First, Pepsi can collaborate with some sort of fitness program, whether it be a gym, like Bally’s or 24 Hour Fitness or maybe DVD workouts like the creators of P90X. Instead of sending promotional codes to redeem a free soda, vending machine customers can send out two text messages, one to their phone and another to a friend. The code redeemed online can be used as a discount to some sort of workout class at a gym or a workout video. This way people can have a soda, but also have an option of working out and working off the calories afterwards. Who knows, maybe this will “open the door” for someone to start working out on a daily basis.
Another idea combines soda with philanthropic work. People always love an opportunity to give back to those less fortunate. In the wake of the devastation in Japan and the tragedy of the tornadoes in the southern United States, the Pepsi Co. can team up with a charity like the Red Cross. Instead of typing in someone’s phone number, the customer can choose from a selection of causes to donate to (i.e. Japan, Southern States, Haiti, etc…). Pepsi will then proceed to date a portion on the money made off the beverage to a charity helping out with various devastations around our world. This may seem like a far-fetched idea, but helping those in need is always a compelling reason for people to by a soda.
The word “Social” in “Social Vending,” doesn’t have to always mean commenting on someone’s wall or tagging them in a picture. To be social can be to reach out and communicate with those around you for a greater good. In this case Pepsi has the ability to allow people to “gift” people with the gift of a healthier lifestyle or help during natural disasters.
Even though their business is soda, one of the unhealthiest beverages one could consume, The Pepsi Co. needs to recognize that they shouldn’t use their products and the latest technology to play with a person’s health. It is pretty obvious that these “social vending” machines will start a vicious cycle of consumers increasing their intake of Pepsi.
On the PepsiCo. Web site, Chief Innovation Officer, Mikel Durham said, “Our vision is to use innovative technology to empower consumers and create new ways for them to engage with our brands.” But I highly doubt this is empowering customers, especially if they are putting them in a position in which they will heighten their chances of obesity, diabetes and dental problems.
In 2009 The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research did a study linking soda intake to the rise of obesity in California. They found the following:
• Adults who drink one or more sodas a day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese.
• Each additional serving of soda a day increases a child’s risk of obesity by 60 percent.
• In the last 25 years, the obesity rate in California rose from 8.9 percent to 24 percent, which is about 1 in 4 Americans.
This really does put things into perspective. Christine Sister, VP, equipment innovation, PepsiCo. said on the web site, “Our approach to technology innovation is driven by what we know consumers want.” I understand what she’s saying, but ultimately I don’t think costumers want to become part of the chain of consumers that will contribute to the increase of obesity in this country.
The web site goes on to say, “Social vending also enables, ‘Random Acts of Refreshment’- the ability to buy a drink for a complete stranger through any other Social Vending system.” That’s great that Pepsi has good intentions in this area, but realistically they will be doing a better act if they promote less soda and more healthy habits, which can enable their loyal customers to live a longer life.
Two days ago Pepsi Co. announced it’s version of the “Social Vending System,” in which people buy a soda from the vending machine and then “gift” a friend through typing in their name, cell number and personalized message into the machine. The text message will then be sent out to the intended recipient with a code and instructions to redeem a free soda at any other state of the art Pepsi Social Vending system.
It’s no secret that soda is not good for us and with the rising number of obesity in this country it’s no doubt that this new “state of the art” Pepsi machine is just continuing the cycle of obesity, which kills over 100,000 people a year. The Pepsi Co. needs to come up with a healthier alternative to bring in more profit. I know it sounds like an oxymoron- buy a soda and get something healthy, but hey, it’s a start.
It’s better for Pepsi to take the “healthy” route and try to incorporate some sort of healthy incentive to buy their products, rather than just start a cycle of buying soda after soda. This world already sees enough diabetes, cavities and other problems due to being overweight, the least this soda company can due is use this new vending machine to contribute to the improvement of our world, rather than help create more health problems through their products.
I’ve come up with some “healthier” alternatives that can still help Pepsi increase revenue, while still helping customers live better lives.
First, Pepsi can collaborate with some sort of fitness program, whether it be a gym, like Bally’s or 24 Hour Fitness or maybe DVD workouts like the creators of P90X. Instead of sending promotional codes to redeem a free soda, vending machine customers can send out two text messages, one to their phone and another to a friend. The code redeemed online can be used as a discount to some sort of workout class at a gym or a workout video. This way people can have a soda, but also have an option of working out and working off the calories afterwards. Who knows, maybe this will “open the door” for someone to start working out on a daily basis.
Another idea combines soda with philanthropic work. People always love an opportunity to give back to those less fortunate. In the wake of the devastation in Japan and the tragedy of the tornadoes in the southern United States, the Pepsi Co. can team up with a charity like the Red Cross. Instead of typing in someone’s phone number, the customer can choose from a selection of causes to donate to (i.e. Japan, Southern States, Haiti, etc…). Pepsi will then proceed to date a portion on the money made off the beverage to a charity helping out with various devastations around our world. This may seem like a far-fetched idea, but helping those in need is always a compelling reason for people to by a soda.
The word “Social” in “Social Vending,” doesn’t have to always mean commenting on someone’s wall or tagging them in a picture. To be social can be to reach out and communicate with those around you for a greater good. In this case Pepsi has the ability to allow people to “gift” people with the gift of a healthier lifestyle or help during natural disasters.
Even though their business is soda, one of the unhealthiest beverages one could consume, The Pepsi Co. needs to recognize that they shouldn’t use their products and the latest technology to play with a person’s health. It is pretty obvious that these “social vending” machines will start a vicious cycle of consumers increasing their intake of Pepsi.
On the PepsiCo. Web site, Chief Innovation Officer, Mikel Durham said, “Our vision is to use innovative technology to empower consumers and create new ways for them to engage with our brands.” But I highly doubt this is empowering customers, especially if they are putting them in a position in which they will heighten their chances of obesity, diabetes and dental problems.
In 2009 The UCLA Center for Health Policy Research did a study linking soda intake to the rise of obesity in California. They found the following:
• Adults who drink one or more sodas a day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese.
• Each additional serving of soda a day increases a child’s risk of obesity by 60 percent.
• In the last 25 years, the obesity rate in California rose from 8.9 percent to 24 percent, which is about 1 in 4 Americans.
This really does put things into perspective. Christine Sister, VP, equipment innovation, PepsiCo. said on the web site, “Our approach to technology innovation is driven by what we know consumers want.” I understand what she’s saying, but ultimately I don’t think costumers want to become part of the chain of consumers that will contribute to the increase of obesity in this country.
The web site goes on to say, “Social vending also enables, ‘Random Acts of Refreshment’- the ability to buy a drink for a complete stranger through any other Social Vending system.” That’s great that Pepsi has good intentions in this area, but realistically they will be doing a better act if they promote less soda and more healthy habits, which can enable their loyal customers to live a longer life.
A royal message
It is now hours before the much- anticipated “Royal Wedding” between Prince William and Catherine Middleton. No one has been able to turn on the television without seeing every news reporter talking about Kate’s dress. We’ve seen coins, mugs and candy sporting the faces of the bride and groom to be. The news media has done a great job talking about all the superficial aspects of Will and Kate’s marriage, but the problem is that they are missing the point of the role of this royal couple. More needs to be done to shed light on the philanthropic work the couple plans to do, rather than wedding guest list.
Princess Diana was definitely a woman that was loved by all and stood out for her works of love, through helping the poor, needy and lonely around the world. It’s no wonder why so many people are attempting to compare how Kate will live up to her late mother-in-law. So if the world is going to compare Kate to Princess Diana, wouldn’t it only be natural for them to ask of the future Princess what she plans to do for the less fortunate of the world? But no… instead they are prying Lady Middleton to please let them know who is designing her wedding dress.
The truth is, Kate is her own person and deserves to be given room to carve her own path and make her own footsteps. So far we know that the couple asks that instead of wedding gifts, that their guests give money to a charity the couple have selected.
Journalists covering the wedding, need to ask questions that matter. Kate’s engagement ring and hats are nice, but they can only do so much for society. To be royal not only means to look good, but to do good as well. And this is something that people need to remember. When the guests have gone home and the honeymoon is over, how will William and Kate make their mark as husband and wife?
No doubt this wedding is monumental for a reason, but the underlying reason is because they have a big duty to accomplish. Too much is given much is expected. They have a duty to the people of their country, to reach out, just as Princess Diana did. To hold the hand of the sick person in the hospital, to inspire the young children in the school yard and let the lonely elderly person know that they are still valuable and wanted. The opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others is what makes being of a royal family so valuable.
I think news networks need to take a brake from talking about the latest dress Kate has worn and dedicate a segment to “The Future Works of the Royal Couple.” The segment could highlight several key issues of the bride and groom.
1) First it will highlight their philanthropic efforts thus far.
2) The reporter will touch upon the fact that William has decided that Kate will not be taking on full-time royal duties immediately after they are married, in order for her to become comfortable in her duty as a member of the royal family. Will these mean Kate will be involved in less charity work for the beginning days of their marriage?
3) The last part of the segment would highlight the couple’s future charity work. This would include discussing key issues that Will and Kate will focus on as a couple.
Hopefully people around the world won’t get lost in the hype of the glitz and glamour of these two lives coming together. Through the right kind of media attention, the public can begin to know what makes a royal marriage important- the ability to make a difference in live of those who need help, not those who need fashion tips.
Princess Diana was definitely a woman that was loved by all and stood out for her works of love, through helping the poor, needy and lonely around the world. It’s no wonder why so many people are attempting to compare how Kate will live up to her late mother-in-law. So if the world is going to compare Kate to Princess Diana, wouldn’t it only be natural for them to ask of the future Princess what she plans to do for the less fortunate of the world? But no… instead they are prying Lady Middleton to please let them know who is designing her wedding dress.
The truth is, Kate is her own person and deserves to be given room to carve her own path and make her own footsteps. So far we know that the couple asks that instead of wedding gifts, that their guests give money to a charity the couple have selected.
Journalists covering the wedding, need to ask questions that matter. Kate’s engagement ring and hats are nice, but they can only do so much for society. To be royal not only means to look good, but to do good as well. And this is something that people need to remember. When the guests have gone home and the honeymoon is over, how will William and Kate make their mark as husband and wife?
No doubt this wedding is monumental for a reason, but the underlying reason is because they have a big duty to accomplish. Too much is given much is expected. They have a duty to the people of their country, to reach out, just as Princess Diana did. To hold the hand of the sick person in the hospital, to inspire the young children in the school yard and let the lonely elderly person know that they are still valuable and wanted. The opportunity to make a difference in the lives of others is what makes being of a royal family so valuable.
I think news networks need to take a brake from talking about the latest dress Kate has worn and dedicate a segment to “The Future Works of the Royal Couple.” The segment could highlight several key issues of the bride and groom.
1) First it will highlight their philanthropic efforts thus far.
2) The reporter will touch upon the fact that William has decided that Kate will not be taking on full-time royal duties immediately after they are married, in order for her to become comfortable in her duty as a member of the royal family. Will these mean Kate will be involved in less charity work for the beginning days of their marriage?
3) The last part of the segment would highlight the couple’s future charity work. This would include discussing key issues that Will and Kate will focus on as a couple.
Hopefully people around the world won’t get lost in the hype of the glitz and glamour of these two lives coming together. Through the right kind of media attention, the public can begin to know what makes a royal marriage important- the ability to make a difference in live of those who need help, not those who need fashion tips.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
A lesson for television news
Here’s the $15 million question: in the rough state of our economy, why are news networks paying their anchors an insane amount of money, despite declining ratings? Some people on television make too much money, for doing too little. Networks must rethink their strategies if they want their programs to survive an era when television news is struggling… to say the least.
Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer (just to name a few) all make a whopping $15 million a year, while Matt Lauer makes $13 million. When Katie Couric became anchor of CBS evening news, CBS employers all over the world felt it. Many were laid off just to compensate for Couric’s salary.
The indifference these on air “talents” have towards the repercussions of their high salaries is part of the key issue here. The other part is that these networks are still willing to negotiate extremely high salaries with these anchors, despite their dropped ratings.
Yes, these people you see reporting on network news are hardworking and talented, but to be quite frank, reading off a teleprompter,and 25 second copy stories about political reports and maybe an "exclusive interview" here and there is hardly worth earning more than $10 million dollars.
As a broadcast journalism major myself I know the inside world of broadcast news, and I will be the first to admit that the salaries these people on network news make is ridiculous. I propose a change be made in the world of news.
Here’s the $10 solution:
First of all the presidents of these networks need to come to terms that the quality of their news programs are declining, because of their limited staff. Many talented on air reporters, producers, writers, and camera crews were laid off after the networks couldn’t afford to pay them, because they decided an anchor was way more important. Many were left without work and the networks were stuck with limitations on their resources.
The solution to this is simple. (Drum roll please…) Pay your anchors less. If they don’t like it, then let them leave. I know for a fact there are tons of people who would gladly take Couric or Sawyer’s job for less money, without complaint. Many of these people are not essential to the news anyways. If they leave because they won’t get paid as much it’s ok. After all, they never did increase ratings from the beginning. Networks have nothing to lose.
Many people within the network news companies may argue that it’s not so simple to fix this dilemma, but they are getting it all wrong. Their theory is, pay a well-known person more to grab more viewers. The sad reality is that this strategy is not working. It may even be a plus if these on- air people leave. Networks need to diversify to grab a larger audience. Most anchors are Caucasians in their fifties to sixties. I highly doubt this will grab the attention of college students or minorities, especially those who don’t have a keen interest in the news. Networks need young minorities reporting the news. They are more relatable, specifically to the minority population of our nation.
Instead of spending their company’s money on high salaries, networks need to use the money on training younger reporters and correspondents around the world. It’s all about investing in the young talent today, so that news networks can have seasoned, diverse reporters for the future; Not just one anchor the network is banking on to draw in viewers.No pun intended. It may also inspire the next generation of broadcast journalists to be less greedy. After all, making the most money shouldn’t be what journalism is all about.
Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer (just to name a few) all make a whopping $15 million a year, while Matt Lauer makes $13 million. When Katie Couric became anchor of CBS evening news, CBS employers all over the world felt it. Many were laid off just to compensate for Couric’s salary.
The indifference these on air “talents” have towards the repercussions of their high salaries is part of the key issue here. The other part is that these networks are still willing to negotiate extremely high salaries with these anchors, despite their dropped ratings.
Yes, these people you see reporting on network news are hardworking and talented, but to be quite frank, reading off a teleprompter,and 25 second copy stories about political reports and maybe an "exclusive interview" here and there is hardly worth earning more than $10 million dollars.
As a broadcast journalism major myself I know the inside world of broadcast news, and I will be the first to admit that the salaries these people on network news make is ridiculous. I propose a change be made in the world of news.
Here’s the $10 solution:
First of all the presidents of these networks need to come to terms that the quality of their news programs are declining, because of their limited staff. Many talented on air reporters, producers, writers, and camera crews were laid off after the networks couldn’t afford to pay them, because they decided an anchor was way more important. Many were left without work and the networks were stuck with limitations on their resources.
The solution to this is simple. (Drum roll please…) Pay your anchors less. If they don’t like it, then let them leave. I know for a fact there are tons of people who would gladly take Couric or Sawyer’s job for less money, without complaint. Many of these people are not essential to the news anyways. If they leave because they won’t get paid as much it’s ok. After all, they never did increase ratings from the beginning. Networks have nothing to lose.
Many people within the network news companies may argue that it’s not so simple to fix this dilemma, but they are getting it all wrong. Their theory is, pay a well-known person more to grab more viewers. The sad reality is that this strategy is not working. It may even be a plus if these on- air people leave. Networks need to diversify to grab a larger audience. Most anchors are Caucasians in their fifties to sixties. I highly doubt this will grab the attention of college students or minorities, especially those who don’t have a keen interest in the news. Networks need young minorities reporting the news. They are more relatable, specifically to the minority population of our nation.
Instead of spending their company’s money on high salaries, networks need to use the money on training younger reporters and correspondents around the world. It’s all about investing in the young talent today, so that news networks can have seasoned, diverse reporters for the future; Not just one anchor the network is banking on to draw in viewers.No pun intended. It may also inspire the next generation of broadcast journalists to be less greedy. After all, making the most money shouldn’t be what journalism is all about.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
PUBLIC SQUARE Giving a Voice to the Silenced: The Missing Women of Juarez
Everyday dozens of girls go missing in the Mexican city of Juarez, Chihuahua. They seem to just disappear with out a trace in site. No notes, no leads. Just mothers’ tears and fathers’ questions of what happened to their child.
Hundred of “Missing Women” flyers line the walls of Juarez buildings. They show the pictures and description of girls, ages fifteen to their early twenties.; Attempts of families trying to find answers.
One cannot help but wonder, where is the government in this mess? The corruption of the countries police force is quite evident, but still no justified excuse as to why so many innocent lives with so much potential are taken away, especially with no closure given to their families.
According to a report done by reporter Girish Gupta of New Statesman, since current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon took office in 2006 the number of women vanishing or being killed has risen. If the country’s president cannot come to the assistance of these young women, then surely this gives a reflection of the political state of the country.
Now, before I elaborate on this issue I would like to add a note about Mexico. It truly is a wonderful country with beautiful people, nature and culture. And this piece is in no way trying to tarnish the reputation of this country with rich history. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people of Mexico. But the hard truth is that, like any country, there is corruption; A virus that is taking away valuable members of society. This “femicide” needs to stop. The women of Juarez deserve their dignity back, their protection back and the life God gave them.
The women kidnapped are presumed to be pressured to partake in sex trafficking then dumped. The mere fact that these women are low income and probably couldn’t afford a ransom doesn’t help their situation either. The government is allowing the impoverished to be taken advantage of. If the “strong” cannot even protect the “weak,” then surely the country cannot progress as a nation.
The truth is, the Mexican government needs to make a harder effort to protect their young female citizens and gain justice for the families of victims.
The victims tend to be slender with dark hair and dark eyes. The similar physical appearance among the missing girls is a clue. Anyone can see that a certain group is being targeted.
When will enough be enough for the police to wake up and recognize the gravity of this issue? In Mexico, as in any other country, there are drug problems and human trafficking, so if the government is trying to gain a better image for their country, it’s interesting to observe that they aren’t making a more valiant effort to try and find these women. To say that there are just too many missing to try and find them all is no valid reason. Neither is playing the blame game.
The Mexican Government blames the victims. They claim the young women are simply running away from home with their boyfriends. But I doubt the families of the 900 women that were captured, tortured and killed between 1993 and 2010 would have agreed with this reasoning.
Another theory police have is that there is a rapist on the lurk kidnapping women and killing them. Well I’m sure there are several, but for one man to kidnap 900 hundred is just too naïve of an idea.
According to the Juarez Project, an advocacy organization aimed at helping the women of Juarez, about 90 percent of the women who go missing are employed by sweatshops, otherwise known as the maquiladora sector. These factories export products to the United States, which is to be assumed because Juarez borders the Texas city of El Paso.
I think it’s safe to say that something inhumane is lurking around the streets of Juarez, more than just rapists. Let’s look at the bigger picture. Hundreds of women, with similar physical characteristics are going missing (and many found dead) in a town filled with drug cartel and human trafficking. And the police have the audacity to tell everyone that they don’t know what could have happened to these girls. Not one clue? The best they can come up with is that these girls, with dreams, goals, educations, are running away with their boyfriends? Give me a break. Justice is not being served. Someone is preying on the weak. And the authorities are not telling on that someone.
These women going missing are no coincidences. Someone is making a profitable business on these girls and they do not like how the community is starting to react. Advocacy groups have begun to emerge. These organizations are comprised of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, and people who care about their fellow sisters whose stories deserve to be told.
Susan Chavez was a leader in the advocacy movement to push Juarez authorities to find out what is happening to all these women. Chavez was found murdered outside an abandoned house three months ago. This was such a loss to the people of Juarez that the police tried to keep her murder covered up to keep from causing unrest within the Juarez community. I think it’s fair to reason that there has been unrest since these women have begun to disappear.
Had the women all going missing been a coincidence, then no one would have targeted Chavez, a prominent advocate for the missing women and their families since the early 1990s. Gupta wrote in his article that Chavez, “ came up with the slogan, ‘Ni una muerte mas,” or, “Not one more death.” They wanted her silenced. She was an obstacle to them, another voice that had the potential to shed light on a “business” no one would speak about. There is no for sure answer as to what this “business” is, but whatever it is, it involves the lives of innocent women.
It’s hard to address a problem if its root cannot be located. Although authorities have very obvious leads to work with (i.e. drug cartels, human trafficking rings, etc…). Maybe they’re scared? Maybe they know, but fear for their lives? But what people do know is that the people of Juarez need to stand up for their protection and for the lives of their women. Maybe, just maybe, they can push the government to really do something for the innocent women who deserved to live. There can still be hope. There can still be prevention. Lessons can be learned, and in turn lives can be saved. Good always overcomes evil. The women of Juarez are forced to be slaves of fear, but now only the truth can set them free.
Hundred of “Missing Women” flyers line the walls of Juarez buildings. They show the pictures and description of girls, ages fifteen to their early twenties.; Attempts of families trying to find answers.
One cannot help but wonder, where is the government in this mess? The corruption of the countries police force is quite evident, but still no justified excuse as to why so many innocent lives with so much potential are taken away, especially with no closure given to their families.
According to a report done by reporter Girish Gupta of New Statesman, since current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon took office in 2006 the number of women vanishing or being killed has risen. If the country’s president cannot come to the assistance of these young women, then surely this gives a reflection of the political state of the country.
Now, before I elaborate on this issue I would like to add a note about Mexico. It truly is a wonderful country with beautiful people, nature and culture. And this piece is in no way trying to tarnish the reputation of this country with rich history. I have nothing but admiration and respect for the people of Mexico. But the hard truth is that, like any country, there is corruption; A virus that is taking away valuable members of society. This “femicide” needs to stop. The women of Juarez deserve their dignity back, their protection back and the life God gave them.
The women kidnapped are presumed to be pressured to partake in sex trafficking then dumped. The mere fact that these women are low income and probably couldn’t afford a ransom doesn’t help their situation either. The government is allowing the impoverished to be taken advantage of. If the “strong” cannot even protect the “weak,” then surely the country cannot progress as a nation.
The truth is, the Mexican government needs to make a harder effort to protect their young female citizens and gain justice for the families of victims.
The victims tend to be slender with dark hair and dark eyes. The similar physical appearance among the missing girls is a clue. Anyone can see that a certain group is being targeted.
When will enough be enough for the police to wake up and recognize the gravity of this issue? In Mexico, as in any other country, there are drug problems and human trafficking, so if the government is trying to gain a better image for their country, it’s interesting to observe that they aren’t making a more valiant effort to try and find these women. To say that there are just too many missing to try and find them all is no valid reason. Neither is playing the blame game.
The Mexican Government blames the victims. They claim the young women are simply running away from home with their boyfriends. But I doubt the families of the 900 women that were captured, tortured and killed between 1993 and 2010 would have agreed with this reasoning.
Another theory police have is that there is a rapist on the lurk kidnapping women and killing them. Well I’m sure there are several, but for one man to kidnap 900 hundred is just too naïve of an idea.
According to the Juarez Project, an advocacy organization aimed at helping the women of Juarez, about 90 percent of the women who go missing are employed by sweatshops, otherwise known as the maquiladora sector. These factories export products to the United States, which is to be assumed because Juarez borders the Texas city of El Paso.
I think it’s safe to say that something inhumane is lurking around the streets of Juarez, more than just rapists. Let’s look at the bigger picture. Hundreds of women, with similar physical characteristics are going missing (and many found dead) in a town filled with drug cartel and human trafficking. And the police have the audacity to tell everyone that they don’t know what could have happened to these girls. Not one clue? The best they can come up with is that these girls, with dreams, goals, educations, are running away with their boyfriends? Give me a break. Justice is not being served. Someone is preying on the weak. And the authorities are not telling on that someone.
These women going missing are no coincidences. Someone is making a profitable business on these girls and they do not like how the community is starting to react. Advocacy groups have begun to emerge. These organizations are comprised of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, and people who care about their fellow sisters whose stories deserve to be told.
Susan Chavez was a leader in the advocacy movement to push Juarez authorities to find out what is happening to all these women. Chavez was found murdered outside an abandoned house three months ago. This was such a loss to the people of Juarez that the police tried to keep her murder covered up to keep from causing unrest within the Juarez community. I think it’s fair to reason that there has been unrest since these women have begun to disappear.
Had the women all going missing been a coincidence, then no one would have targeted Chavez, a prominent advocate for the missing women and their families since the early 1990s. Gupta wrote in his article that Chavez, “ came up with the slogan, ‘Ni una muerte mas,” or, “Not one more death.” They wanted her silenced. She was an obstacle to them, another voice that had the potential to shed light on a “business” no one would speak about. There is no for sure answer as to what this “business” is, but whatever it is, it involves the lives of innocent women.
It’s hard to address a problem if its root cannot be located. Although authorities have very obvious leads to work with (i.e. drug cartels, human trafficking rings, etc…). Maybe they’re scared? Maybe they know, but fear for their lives? But what people do know is that the people of Juarez need to stand up for their protection and for the lives of their women. Maybe, just maybe, they can push the government to really do something for the innocent women who deserved to live. There can still be hope. There can still be prevention. Lessons can be learned, and in turn lives can be saved. Good always overcomes evil. The women of Juarez are forced to be slaves of fear, but now only the truth can set them free.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
A moment of silence for the children unheard
There is a national epidemic that has been hitting our nation for years. Children are dying; more than 1, 700 a year. These deaths could have been prevented, just ask their social workers at the child protection agencies that were supposed to protect them.
Every year children in states across the U.S. are victims of abuse. To give you a clearer picture, Child Welfare reported that children younger than one year made up almost half of the percentage of children being abused.
Children from the ages of one to three made up 35 percent; ages four to seven, ten percent; Eight to eleven, four percent; and ages 12 to 17, six percent.
Children younger and younger are being targeted and left to die. Where is their protection?
Too many times you turn on the television and you see commercials about abused puppies, asking for people to give money to humane societies or to adopt them, to give them a better home, where they will be loved and properly cared for.
What about the children?
What about four year-old Marchella Pierce from New York, who was physically abused and tied to her bed by her mother? She was only eighteen pounds when she died last September.
Didn’t little Marchella deserve a better home? A home where she would be loved and respected as a human being, more importantly, as a child of God.
Marchella’s mom, who is said to have been addicted to drugs, is already facing murder charges. According to a report by New York Times reporter, Mosi Secret, prosecutors said her mother, “tied her to her bed, beat her with a belt and a videocassette tape, deprived her of food and water, and force-fed her medication. Marchella died… of child abuse syndrome, along with acute drug poisoning, blunt impact injuries, malnutrition and dehydration.”
Couldn’t Marchella’s social worker see the red flags? What about the New York judicial system? Why was she even allowed to live with her mother given the evidence of abuse and drug use?
Now Marchella’s welfare worker and his supervisor are being indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide, along with her grandmother who allegedly saw her being abused and tied to the bed, reported the New York Times.
The sad truth is that Marchella’s story is just the tip of the ice berg. Many other children have lost their lives to the negligence of the child protection system. Now this is not to say that all the social workers are being negligent, but too many are.
In 2006, seven-year-old Nixzmary Brown, who was also under the protection of the child welfare agency, died due to child abuse. New York Times reporter Mosi Secret and Cara Buckley reported that she had been “tied to furniture with bungee cords and ropes and was beaten by her step-father.” Although despite her situation the Child Welfare Agency did nothing.
The problem could be traced to that fact that too many cases are being assigned to each social worker, it may be hard to keep tabs on every child- but that is still no excuse. And what’s worse, the state of New York is now looking to cut funds for child welfare agencies. With positions being cut, now there is a lower amount workers assigned to follow more cases of children being abused.
According to the New York Times, the average case worker is assigned to 16.5 cases, but since the many reports of neglect on behalf of these workers have emerged over the past few years, the load is now being narrowed down to nine cases.
The words, “case closed,” should only be used when workers are for certain that the child is in safe hands. Higher standards need to be established by these agencies to better assure that abused children will not be left to abusive parents.
Our children need protection. Negligence is not a valid response to the overwhelming amount of children that need shelter from their dysfunctional homes.
I’m not here to judge Marchella’s case worker, but one can only hope that this will be an example to all social workers everywhere. Hopefully it can serve as a message, telling everyone that a child’s life is not to be gambled with. One can never be too careful, especially when in the position to protect the life of an innocent person being abused.
Like the old saying goes. To whom much is given, much is expected. The life of any child is precious; the case workers must recognize this and realize that they have the ability to make a positive difference in the world and for these kids. Why not start on the right path and make sure these children do not become another statistic.
Every year children in states across the U.S. are victims of abuse. To give you a clearer picture, Child Welfare reported that children younger than one year made up almost half of the percentage of children being abused.
Children from the ages of one to three made up 35 percent; ages four to seven, ten percent; Eight to eleven, four percent; and ages 12 to 17, six percent.
Children younger and younger are being targeted and left to die. Where is their protection?
Too many times you turn on the television and you see commercials about abused puppies, asking for people to give money to humane societies or to adopt them, to give them a better home, where they will be loved and properly cared for.
What about the children?
What about four year-old Marchella Pierce from New York, who was physically abused and tied to her bed by her mother? She was only eighteen pounds when she died last September.
Didn’t little Marchella deserve a better home? A home where she would be loved and respected as a human being, more importantly, as a child of God.
Marchella’s mom, who is said to have been addicted to drugs, is already facing murder charges. According to a report by New York Times reporter, Mosi Secret, prosecutors said her mother, “tied her to her bed, beat her with a belt and a videocassette tape, deprived her of food and water, and force-fed her medication. Marchella died… of child abuse syndrome, along with acute drug poisoning, blunt impact injuries, malnutrition and dehydration.”
Couldn’t Marchella’s social worker see the red flags? What about the New York judicial system? Why was she even allowed to live with her mother given the evidence of abuse and drug use?
Now Marchella’s welfare worker and his supervisor are being indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide, along with her grandmother who allegedly saw her being abused and tied to the bed, reported the New York Times.
The sad truth is that Marchella’s story is just the tip of the ice berg. Many other children have lost their lives to the negligence of the child protection system. Now this is not to say that all the social workers are being negligent, but too many are.
In 2006, seven-year-old Nixzmary Brown, who was also under the protection of the child welfare agency, died due to child abuse. New York Times reporter Mosi Secret and Cara Buckley reported that she had been “tied to furniture with bungee cords and ropes and was beaten by her step-father.” Although despite her situation the Child Welfare Agency did nothing.
The problem could be traced to that fact that too many cases are being assigned to each social worker, it may be hard to keep tabs on every child- but that is still no excuse. And what’s worse, the state of New York is now looking to cut funds for child welfare agencies. With positions being cut, now there is a lower amount workers assigned to follow more cases of children being abused.
According to the New York Times, the average case worker is assigned to 16.5 cases, but since the many reports of neglect on behalf of these workers have emerged over the past few years, the load is now being narrowed down to nine cases.
The words, “case closed,” should only be used when workers are for certain that the child is in safe hands. Higher standards need to be established by these agencies to better assure that abused children will not be left to abusive parents.
Our children need protection. Negligence is not a valid response to the overwhelming amount of children that need shelter from their dysfunctional homes.
I’m not here to judge Marchella’s case worker, but one can only hope that this will be an example to all social workers everywhere. Hopefully it can serve as a message, telling everyone that a child’s life is not to be gambled with. One can never be too careful, especially when in the position to protect the life of an innocent person being abused.
Like the old saying goes. To whom much is given, much is expected. The life of any child is precious; the case workers must recognize this and realize that they have the ability to make a positive difference in the world and for these kids. Why not start on the right path and make sure these children do not become another statistic.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Backbone of our nation
Undocumented immigrants give a new meaning to the United State’s slogan, “home of the free.” I mean after all they come here and basically work for nothing.
Next time you bite into a nice juicy strawberry, use a clean bathroom, admire your mowed lawn, think of the immigrant who did that for you.
The next young Spanish-speaking bus boy, that cleans your five-star restaurant table, the cleaning woman that’s scrubbing your toilet, the woman than sewed your favorite shirt, imagine a world without them.
Illegal immigrants make up about five percent of the country’s labor force. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman even agrees that undocumented workers are important to our economy saying, “Undocumented workers accounted for a sixth of the growth in the nation’s workforce over the first eight years of the decade. Even after the flow of illegal workers has slowed with the recession,” reported Michael Mcauliff of New York Daily News Writer.
Some politicians want a world without them, so this may be a reality coming to a city near you.
These are my modern-day heroes. But to those in the “political world,” they are an economic detriment, taking jobs away from the millions of unemployed in this country.
But that’s funny? The last time I was on Craig’s list or any other job site, I didn’t see any job postings for any field worker willing to work below minimum wage with no benefits. I have not met one American Citizen that would be willing to work sunrise to sunset picking your lettuce or scrubbing the toilet of the rich and famous.
If only the Texas lawmakers would know the lives of these immigrants. If you haven’t already heard, the state of Texas is proposing the House Bill 1202, which would make citizens spend up to two years in prison and pay up to $10,000 in fines if caught hiring illegal immigrants for any type of work.
Associated Press Economics writer, Jeannine Aversa put it so nicely, “If all the illegal workers in this country were booted out tomorrow, economists believe wages would have to rise significantly to get U.S.-born workers to take their jobs.”
According to a poll conducted by AP-lpsos, “about two-thirds of Americans surveyed, said they believed illegal immigrants did the jobs most Americans don’t want,” reported the AP.
Some illegal immigrants pay taxes too. “The Social Security Administration estimates that about three quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare,” reported the AP.
To further support my argument the AP also reported that William Ford, an Economist from Middle Tennessee State University, said, “a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy. He said the tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales taxes, property taxes and exercise taxes 9such as gas tax) are significant,” reported the AP, via MSNBC.
Lawmakers are targeting the Latino immigrant, because the last time I checked Homeland Security wasn’t going out to deport illegal Canadians or pulling them over suspecting that they may be illegal. But that’s another story, for another op-ed piece.
A lot of people don’t know that many of these immigrants that provide inexpensive labor for this country are actually professionals back home. Many of them leave their lives as a dentist, doctor, real estate agent and come here to flee the dangers and struggling economy of their home towns. Much to the surprise of many, not all who cross the border are smuggling drugs.
They risk their lives to come here and make whatever they can to send back money to their families. At the same time they are the only ones willing to work for such low pay at such great quality. These people are hard workers, willing to put their professional pride aside and help the American people do jobs that, well lets face it, that not even people that are unemployed will do.
Not only is this Texas bill going to actually hurt the economy, but is unfair for the Americans who are struggling financially or even the Americans who don’t even know they are hiring illegal immigrants.
Again in the wise words of Aversa,“They pay payroll taxes, they’re helping bankroll Social Security and Medicare but won’t get to participate in the programs because of their immigrant status. Experts also note that illegal immigrants also spend part of their paychecks in this country- for food, clothes, furniture, living expenses and other things- all of which contribute to economic growth.”
Are we really going to prosecute people for hiring someone to mow their lawn or clean their laundry room? People who although, do not have a “legal” status, are willing to work hard in this country for basically nothing.
As far as I’m concerned, the immigrants in this country are the backbone for our nation.
I understand that we have rules in the United States against illegal aliens for purposes of homeland security. And I respect these laws.
But I still can’t help but wonder why are we to prosecute Americans who can’t afford more expensive labor, and persecute those we are willing to contribute to our country through hard labor?
It doesn’t make sense.
So put the people who hire illegal immigrants in jail. And send the immigrants back home. What will this do?
Well for starters, lets see this large deficit we are facing as a country. Well, it will go up because we are putting more undeserving people in jail, thus spending more money through are prison-system and take up spots and money from people who actually committed crimes that are “jail-worthy.”
And well as far as our produce and clean bathrooms, well those probably will be sparse too, because I think it can be assumed that American citizens will not dare to work the same hours with out benefits as these immigrants do.
I believe Texas lawmakers need to think hard about this. They are shooting their state in the foot. They are aware that their state in particular thrives because of the hard work of the illegal immigrant that has crossed the border.
Now I am not trying to promote people to break the law and violate federal law, through “knowingly” hiring illegal immigrants. All I’m asking is for lawmakers to stop covering their eyes from something everyone already knows. Let’s take a look at the big pink elephant in the room. And that is the fact that the illegal immigrants of this country deserve to work here. They work hard for this country, harder than most Americans I know.
I encourage Texas politicians and those in all states to recognize the unjust nature of the House Bill 1202. Not only will it entrap American citizens who don’t know, but cause a decrease of our modern day heroes. These are the man who pours your coffee and the woman who leaves her children and takes care of your baby, these so called, “illegal aliens.”
But they are my heroes.
Next time you bite into a nice juicy strawberry, use a clean bathroom, admire your mowed lawn, think of the immigrant who did that for you.
The next young Spanish-speaking bus boy, that cleans your five-star restaurant table, the cleaning woman that’s scrubbing your toilet, the woman than sewed your favorite shirt, imagine a world without them.
Illegal immigrants make up about five percent of the country’s labor force. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman even agrees that undocumented workers are important to our economy saying, “Undocumented workers accounted for a sixth of the growth in the nation’s workforce over the first eight years of the decade. Even after the flow of illegal workers has slowed with the recession,” reported Michael Mcauliff of New York Daily News Writer.
Some politicians want a world without them, so this may be a reality coming to a city near you.
These are my modern-day heroes. But to those in the “political world,” they are an economic detriment, taking jobs away from the millions of unemployed in this country.
But that’s funny? The last time I was on Craig’s list or any other job site, I didn’t see any job postings for any field worker willing to work below minimum wage with no benefits. I have not met one American Citizen that would be willing to work sunrise to sunset picking your lettuce or scrubbing the toilet of the rich and famous.
If only the Texas lawmakers would know the lives of these immigrants. If you haven’t already heard, the state of Texas is proposing the House Bill 1202, which would make citizens spend up to two years in prison and pay up to $10,000 in fines if caught hiring illegal immigrants for any type of work.
Associated Press Economics writer, Jeannine Aversa put it so nicely, “If all the illegal workers in this country were booted out tomorrow, economists believe wages would have to rise significantly to get U.S.-born workers to take their jobs.”
According to a poll conducted by AP-lpsos, “about two-thirds of Americans surveyed, said they believed illegal immigrants did the jobs most Americans don’t want,” reported the AP.
Some illegal immigrants pay taxes too. “The Social Security Administration estimates that about three quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare,” reported the AP.
To further support my argument the AP also reported that William Ford, an Economist from Middle Tennessee State University, said, “a majority of economists agree that illegal immigrants are a net benefit for the U.S. economy. He said the tax contributions from illegal immigrants, including sales taxes, property taxes and exercise taxes 9such as gas tax) are significant,” reported the AP, via MSNBC.
Lawmakers are targeting the Latino immigrant, because the last time I checked Homeland Security wasn’t going out to deport illegal Canadians or pulling them over suspecting that they may be illegal. But that’s another story, for another op-ed piece.
A lot of people don’t know that many of these immigrants that provide inexpensive labor for this country are actually professionals back home. Many of them leave their lives as a dentist, doctor, real estate agent and come here to flee the dangers and struggling economy of their home towns. Much to the surprise of many, not all who cross the border are smuggling drugs.
They risk their lives to come here and make whatever they can to send back money to their families. At the same time they are the only ones willing to work for such low pay at such great quality. These people are hard workers, willing to put their professional pride aside and help the American people do jobs that, well lets face it, that not even people that are unemployed will do.
Not only is this Texas bill going to actually hurt the economy, but is unfair for the Americans who are struggling financially or even the Americans who don’t even know they are hiring illegal immigrants.
Again in the wise words of Aversa,“They pay payroll taxes, they’re helping bankroll Social Security and Medicare but won’t get to participate in the programs because of their immigrant status. Experts also note that illegal immigrants also spend part of their paychecks in this country- for food, clothes, furniture, living expenses and other things- all of which contribute to economic growth.”
Are we really going to prosecute people for hiring someone to mow their lawn or clean their laundry room? People who although, do not have a “legal” status, are willing to work hard in this country for basically nothing.
As far as I’m concerned, the immigrants in this country are the backbone for our nation.
I understand that we have rules in the United States against illegal aliens for purposes of homeland security. And I respect these laws.
But I still can’t help but wonder why are we to prosecute Americans who can’t afford more expensive labor, and persecute those we are willing to contribute to our country through hard labor?
It doesn’t make sense.
So put the people who hire illegal immigrants in jail. And send the immigrants back home. What will this do?
Well for starters, lets see this large deficit we are facing as a country. Well, it will go up because we are putting more undeserving people in jail, thus spending more money through are prison-system and take up spots and money from people who actually committed crimes that are “jail-worthy.”
And well as far as our produce and clean bathrooms, well those probably will be sparse too, because I think it can be assumed that American citizens will not dare to work the same hours with out benefits as these immigrants do.
I believe Texas lawmakers need to think hard about this. They are shooting their state in the foot. They are aware that their state in particular thrives because of the hard work of the illegal immigrant that has crossed the border.
Now I am not trying to promote people to break the law and violate federal law, through “knowingly” hiring illegal immigrants. All I’m asking is for lawmakers to stop covering their eyes from something everyone already knows. Let’s take a look at the big pink elephant in the room. And that is the fact that the illegal immigrants of this country deserve to work here. They work hard for this country, harder than most Americans I know.
I encourage Texas politicians and those in all states to recognize the unjust nature of the House Bill 1202. Not only will it entrap American citizens who don’t know, but cause a decrease of our modern day heroes. These are the man who pours your coffee and the woman who leaves her children and takes care of your baby, these so called, “illegal aliens.”
But they are my heroes.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The New Standard for Objective Journalism
The GOP has become a large threat to Planned Parenthood and their pro-choice counterparts. In the past few weeks breaking news flooded newspapers, television and the Internet about the country’s budget and many riots that have plagued counties overseas. However, it is fair to argue that one of the most note-worthy stories covered is the Republicans party’s initiative to have Planned Parenthood defunded. As a pro-life, Catholic journalist this has obviously caught my eye, but what has been quite troublesome is the media’s role in covering this issue. Now more than ever have double standards invaded the news. In a world where journalism is supposed to be objective, the new standard of “neutral” in the media is to be “liberal.” And so it can be observed from the stance of a “conservative” journalist, that the news coverage of the Planned Parenthood debate has shown to be more “liberal” than should be accepted in journalism- it does not fit the mold of what journalism should be.
Last week The House passed legislation that could potentially defund Planned Parenthood. This comes after years of controversy surrounding how much money is given to Planned Parenthood through tax dollars. Last year more than $360 million was given to this pro-choice corporation. Since The House’s vote many pro Planned Parenthood have been outraged at the thought of losing funds. And many of those outraged are the journalists that we encounter everyday. These journalists have made their liberal viewpoints very clear, at the expense of offending conservative audiences through their one-sided reporting.
In reading the various articles online about the Planned Parenthood debate one headline caught my attention. It read, “The Conservative War on Planned Parenthood.” The article, written by Huffington Post writer, Bill de Blasio, said, “The conservative movement has declared war on Planned Parenthood and the rights of women. Now New Yorkers should lead the effort to fight back. Take five minutes to make your voice heard by calling your Congress member and Senator or join the Stand up for Women's Health rally on February 26th in Foley Square. Together we can show the country that New York City will not be silent when women's health care comes under attack.” Although Mr. de Blasio has a right to write his thoughts, where is the objectivism on behalf of The Huffington Post? De Blasio’s comments sound like a commercial for Planned Parenthood, which goes against every journalistic ethic.
As a conservative reader one cannot help but wonder why, in the coverage of this Planned Parenthood issue, it’s acceptable for pro-choice journalists to be able to voice their opinions and still be published, but conservative writers are left to be unheard or the “silencers,” of pro-choice actions. This double standard has become all too popular in journalism.
Before I began to analyze the subjective nature found in today’s news the “other side” (liberal journalists) needs to be analyzed. For starters, it is safe to say that perhaps the reason why so many editors and producers have allowed the liberal voice to become the standard for many of their journalists is because of the impression that we live in a predominately liberal country. But does this make the pro-life voice less valuable? One would hope not, in a democratic society where all intellectual views should be equally heard. So why is the voice of the conservative, pro-life journalist being washed out? Or labeled as “extremist.” This is not journalism- but if this is what the standard for journalism is now, than perhaps so are the balanced ethics of the profession.
On the other hand, as touched upon in the thesis, from a conservative standpoint, the new liberal norm for the majority of the sources of journalism in that the country does not fit the “objective balanced” mold that journalism should consist of. So to be fair, allow me to briefly defend the pro-life stance on the Planned Parenthood debate, since this side lacks the proper coverage it deserves- but that’s only my opinion. In defense of the pro-life movement and in an effort to give a more in depth look at where they are coming from, one must focus on the issue that has become unanimous with Planned Parenthood- abortion. The Pro-life politicians, and citizens of the United States have made it their duty to protect the lives of the unborn. They don’t want their tax dollars to support an organization, such as Planned Parenthood that provides abortions to women. In Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s article, “Promoting Fetal Personhood,” for the Feminist Formations Journal Summer 2010, they wrote, “Pro-life forces are vigorously pursuing the agenda of fetal personhood at every level of government, advancing it in hospitable states and pushing Congress to erode away the abortion right.”
However, before one can even begin to answer the question as to why the coverage of the GOP trying to defund Planned Parenthood has become unethically biased, the dynamics of who is covering the news must be broken down.
No matter if you are a journalist or not, beneath any title lies a human being with their own points of views and emotions. As a journalist it is important to contain your views and report unbiased information. Unfortunately this has not been the case with today’s news coverage, leaving the new norm for a journalist. In the case of covering the defunding of Planned Parenthood, to be a liberal, pro-choice journalists and giving your thoughts, is viewed as being “neutral” or “objective.” But if you are a journalist with conservative views and write or talk about them then you are considered “anti-woman” and too pushy with your beliefs. There is an unsaid unaccepted prejudice against the conservative reporting of the Planned Parenthood debate. In a scholarly article for “Feminist Formation,” Glen A. Halva and Sara L. Zeigher write, “We found that the pro-life movement engaged in an effective strategy of advancing the anti-abortion agenda by constructing key rhetorical positions designed to foster public opposition to abortion.” Anyone in my position would completely disagree with this when applied to today’s media when covering this particular ordeal with Planned Parenthood and the GOP. To further this argument one can take New York’s Examiner.com writer, Jessica Oesterie’s article into account. In her article covering Planned Parenthood’s rally for women’s health she wrote (in bold letters), “Planned Parenthood clinics are dedicated to the empowerment of all women through education and family planning options, particularly in underserved communities. They also offer various services to men in the form of contraceptives, disease information, disease screenings and consultation.” Now if this doesn’t sound like a Planned Parenthood advertisement to anyone then journalism must be really going down then drain. This article is clearly trying to sway readers to be pro-planned parenthood. Therefore the previous claim that pro-life people try to sway the public view to be anti-choice is falsified. With this information presented it is fair to say that it’s okay for liberal journalists to come out and freely say what they believe in, when covering this particular issue, but heaven forbid a conservative writer wrote about what they believe. The same example of double standards can be found in the criticism of pro-life actions.
The media has been quick to criticize the undercover work done by pro-life group Live Action. In their undercover work Live Action caught Planned Parenthood workers in six different states willing to help out (actors posed as) “pimps” and his “underage women” receive services instead of reporting him to the authorities for human trafficking. Rather than just reporting what happened, and let the viewer or reader infer for themselves what this meant, headlines read, “ “Falsified Deception or Lying?”, “Behind the Assault on Planned Parenthood,” (Ryan Grimm, Huffington Post), “Hoax Video Exposed,” (Media Matters for America) when in fact the videos were proven to be true. In journalism, most of the times opinions are not welcomed. There seems to be an underlying vendetta against the pro-life movement. This is so because, had the undercover work been done to expose animal-abuse no one would have said anything. But because it’s a pro-life group exposing wrong within Planned Parenthood, even when it deals with human trafficking, journalists are pointing out who they think is the “bad guy” (Live Action in this case). There is no need for this subjective behavior on behalf of the media.
The double standard within the media covering the Planned Parenthood debate is shown through this same example of Live Action’s undercover work in exposing Planned Parenthood. Live Action is in a sense a form of muckraker journalism. They did the undercover work, stated the facts of what happened and posted the video for people to see and take what they want from it on their own. In the greater part of the media’s eyes (not including Fox News) the actions of Live Action were “wrong and “manipulative.” When in reality all they did was investigative journalism. This is no different than any other investigative piece that other reporters do to expose corruption like malpractice with doctors. However, for the majority of journalists to express their personal opinion about the issue has become acceptable? As a journalist it is frustrating to see one side (the left) take precedence over the other (the right).
In his article “Journalism: Objective or Subjective?” for Salem News.com, writer Ersun Warnke said, “Journalism as a profession is defined institutionally as being devoted to objective truth. Facts. Events. Names, dates, and places. The classical definition of journalism assumes that there is some observable truth that can be related in an objective fashion from the observer to the reader.” The key word presented here is “facts.” As a viewer I just want the facts, and I will then take what I want from it.
Now this is not to say that journalists are not allowed to have some sort of voice. In certain scenarios it is to be expected that the anchor/ reporter is to give their views, based on the nature of the broadcast or publication they work for (e.g. The O’Reilly Factor, etc.). However, if a journalist is working for a “neutral,” news source, their ranting should be saved for other times.
The reasoning for my position on this issue stems not only from my experience as a journalist, but as a news consumer as well. There is a problem if a news network or publication is in anyway offensive to their audience, due to personal comments made by the journalist. For instance, I am pro-life, and as I read and watch the supposedly-neutral coverage on the Planned Parenthood debate, I am not bothered because I don’t necessarily agree with some of these left-winged journalists, but because they are carrying out their opinion too far, to the point where one side of the story is covered up by their political bias. I agree to disagree with some of these writers and broadcasters, but if news networks or publications are going to allow for their writers or broadcasters to let their pro-choice opinions be heard openly, at the risk of offending their pro-life audience, then they should openly welcome pro-life, conservative journalists to do the same. It’s only right and the balanced thing to do.
Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s again write in their article, “Pro-life groups have experienced failures, to be sure, but their history is one of creative persistence and increasing success. Where direct attacks on the abortion right have failed, the groups have attempted to establish the legal personhood of the fetus through other means, without abandoning the direct attack in venues where it has some hopes of success. It is clear that the message has begun to resonate with both legislators and the public. We anticipate that the efforts to persuade the American public that the fetus is indeed a person, and that failure to recognize its humanity harms not only the fetus but also the women and society at large, will continue to gain adherents.” Perhaps one day this massage that they write about will be heard through the news media. But to be totally “objective” in today’s standards, I believe these pro-life messages are shining through and will one day be heard through a journalist who will once again break the mold of what a fair and balanced journalist should be. Let’s shatter the glass ceiling and reverse the role of the journalist today. Tip the scale a little more to the right and more for life.
Last week The House passed legislation that could potentially defund Planned Parenthood. This comes after years of controversy surrounding how much money is given to Planned Parenthood through tax dollars. Last year more than $360 million was given to this pro-choice corporation. Since The House’s vote many pro Planned Parenthood have been outraged at the thought of losing funds. And many of those outraged are the journalists that we encounter everyday. These journalists have made their liberal viewpoints very clear, at the expense of offending conservative audiences through their one-sided reporting.
In reading the various articles online about the Planned Parenthood debate one headline caught my attention. It read, “The Conservative War on Planned Parenthood.” The article, written by Huffington Post writer, Bill de Blasio, said, “The conservative movement has declared war on Planned Parenthood and the rights of women. Now New Yorkers should lead the effort to fight back. Take five minutes to make your voice heard by calling your Congress member and Senator or join the Stand up for Women's Health rally on February 26th in Foley Square. Together we can show the country that New York City will not be silent when women's health care comes under attack.” Although Mr. de Blasio has a right to write his thoughts, where is the objectivism on behalf of The Huffington Post? De Blasio’s comments sound like a commercial for Planned Parenthood, which goes against every journalistic ethic.
As a conservative reader one cannot help but wonder why, in the coverage of this Planned Parenthood issue, it’s acceptable for pro-choice journalists to be able to voice their opinions and still be published, but conservative writers are left to be unheard or the “silencers,” of pro-choice actions. This double standard has become all too popular in journalism.
Before I began to analyze the subjective nature found in today’s news the “other side” (liberal journalists) needs to be analyzed. For starters, it is safe to say that perhaps the reason why so many editors and producers have allowed the liberal voice to become the standard for many of their journalists is because of the impression that we live in a predominately liberal country. But does this make the pro-life voice less valuable? One would hope not, in a democratic society where all intellectual views should be equally heard. So why is the voice of the conservative, pro-life journalist being washed out? Or labeled as “extremist.” This is not journalism- but if this is what the standard for journalism is now, than perhaps so are the balanced ethics of the profession.
On the other hand, as touched upon in the thesis, from a conservative standpoint, the new liberal norm for the majority of the sources of journalism in that the country does not fit the “objective balanced” mold that journalism should consist of. So to be fair, allow me to briefly defend the pro-life stance on the Planned Parenthood debate, since this side lacks the proper coverage it deserves- but that’s only my opinion. In defense of the pro-life movement and in an effort to give a more in depth look at where they are coming from, one must focus on the issue that has become unanimous with Planned Parenthood- abortion. The Pro-life politicians, and citizens of the United States have made it their duty to protect the lives of the unborn. They don’t want their tax dollars to support an organization, such as Planned Parenthood that provides abortions to women. In Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s article, “Promoting Fetal Personhood,” for the Feminist Formations Journal Summer 2010, they wrote, “Pro-life forces are vigorously pursuing the agenda of fetal personhood at every level of government, advancing it in hospitable states and pushing Congress to erode away the abortion right.”
However, before one can even begin to answer the question as to why the coverage of the GOP trying to defund Planned Parenthood has become unethically biased, the dynamics of who is covering the news must be broken down.
No matter if you are a journalist or not, beneath any title lies a human being with their own points of views and emotions. As a journalist it is important to contain your views and report unbiased information. Unfortunately this has not been the case with today’s news coverage, leaving the new norm for a journalist. In the case of covering the defunding of Planned Parenthood, to be a liberal, pro-choice journalists and giving your thoughts, is viewed as being “neutral” or “objective.” But if you are a journalist with conservative views and write or talk about them then you are considered “anti-woman” and too pushy with your beliefs. There is an unsaid unaccepted prejudice against the conservative reporting of the Planned Parenthood debate. In a scholarly article for “Feminist Formation,” Glen A. Halva and Sara L. Zeigher write, “We found that the pro-life movement engaged in an effective strategy of advancing the anti-abortion agenda by constructing key rhetorical positions designed to foster public opposition to abortion.” Anyone in my position would completely disagree with this when applied to today’s media when covering this particular ordeal with Planned Parenthood and the GOP. To further this argument one can take New York’s Examiner.com writer, Jessica Oesterie’s article into account. In her article covering Planned Parenthood’s rally for women’s health she wrote (in bold letters), “Planned Parenthood clinics are dedicated to the empowerment of all women through education and family planning options, particularly in underserved communities. They also offer various services to men in the form of contraceptives, disease information, disease screenings and consultation.” Now if this doesn’t sound like a Planned Parenthood advertisement to anyone then journalism must be really going down then drain. This article is clearly trying to sway readers to be pro-planned parenthood. Therefore the previous claim that pro-life people try to sway the public view to be anti-choice is falsified. With this information presented it is fair to say that it’s okay for liberal journalists to come out and freely say what they believe in, when covering this particular issue, but heaven forbid a conservative writer wrote about what they believe. The same example of double standards can be found in the criticism of pro-life actions.
The media has been quick to criticize the undercover work done by pro-life group Live Action. In their undercover work Live Action caught Planned Parenthood workers in six different states willing to help out (actors posed as) “pimps” and his “underage women” receive services instead of reporting him to the authorities for human trafficking. Rather than just reporting what happened, and let the viewer or reader infer for themselves what this meant, headlines read, “ “Falsified Deception or Lying?”, “Behind the Assault on Planned Parenthood,” (Ryan Grimm, Huffington Post), “Hoax Video Exposed,” (Media Matters for America) when in fact the videos were proven to be true. In journalism, most of the times opinions are not welcomed. There seems to be an underlying vendetta against the pro-life movement. This is so because, had the undercover work been done to expose animal-abuse no one would have said anything. But because it’s a pro-life group exposing wrong within Planned Parenthood, even when it deals with human trafficking, journalists are pointing out who they think is the “bad guy” (Live Action in this case). There is no need for this subjective behavior on behalf of the media.
The double standard within the media covering the Planned Parenthood debate is shown through this same example of Live Action’s undercover work in exposing Planned Parenthood. Live Action is in a sense a form of muckraker journalism. They did the undercover work, stated the facts of what happened and posted the video for people to see and take what they want from it on their own. In the greater part of the media’s eyes (not including Fox News) the actions of Live Action were “wrong and “manipulative.” When in reality all they did was investigative journalism. This is no different than any other investigative piece that other reporters do to expose corruption like malpractice with doctors. However, for the majority of journalists to express their personal opinion about the issue has become acceptable? As a journalist it is frustrating to see one side (the left) take precedence over the other (the right).
In his article “Journalism: Objective or Subjective?” for Salem News.com, writer Ersun Warnke said, “Journalism as a profession is defined institutionally as being devoted to objective truth. Facts. Events. Names, dates, and places. The classical definition of journalism assumes that there is some observable truth that can be related in an objective fashion from the observer to the reader.” The key word presented here is “facts.” As a viewer I just want the facts, and I will then take what I want from it.
Now this is not to say that journalists are not allowed to have some sort of voice. In certain scenarios it is to be expected that the anchor/ reporter is to give their views, based on the nature of the broadcast or publication they work for (e.g. The O’Reilly Factor, etc.). However, if a journalist is working for a “neutral,” news source, their ranting should be saved for other times.
The reasoning for my position on this issue stems not only from my experience as a journalist, but as a news consumer as well. There is a problem if a news network or publication is in anyway offensive to their audience, due to personal comments made by the journalist. For instance, I am pro-life, and as I read and watch the supposedly-neutral coverage on the Planned Parenthood debate, I am not bothered because I don’t necessarily agree with some of these left-winged journalists, but because they are carrying out their opinion too far, to the point where one side of the story is covered up by their political bias. I agree to disagree with some of these writers and broadcasters, but if news networks or publications are going to allow for their writers or broadcasters to let their pro-choice opinions be heard openly, at the risk of offending their pro-life audience, then they should openly welcome pro-life, conservative journalists to do the same. It’s only right and the balanced thing to do.
Glen A. Halva- Neubauer and Sara L. Zeigler’s again write in their article, “Pro-life groups have experienced failures, to be sure, but their history is one of creative persistence and increasing success. Where direct attacks on the abortion right have failed, the groups have attempted to establish the legal personhood of the fetus through other means, without abandoning the direct attack in venues where it has some hopes of success. It is clear that the message has begun to resonate with both legislators and the public. We anticipate that the efforts to persuade the American public that the fetus is indeed a person, and that failure to recognize its humanity harms not only the fetus but also the women and society at large, will continue to gain adherents.” Perhaps one day this massage that they write about will be heard through the news media. But to be totally “objective” in today’s standards, I believe these pro-life messages are shining through and will one day be heard through a journalist who will once again break the mold of what a fair and balanced journalist should be. Let’s shatter the glass ceiling and reverse the role of the journalist today. Tip the scale a little more to the right and more for life.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Planned Parenthood Exposed and My Tax Dollars
If you’ve read my previous blog you know that I am pro-life. It’s also no surprise that I was very happy with the work of Lila Rose’s Live Action Pro-life group undercover work that exposed the corruption within Planned Parenthood. Rose and her group sent out a couple posing as a “pimp” and a young, underage female. What they caught on camera was mind blowing. They told the people at Planned Parenthood that they did “sex work,” and needed to get some of the women then just got shipped to the U.S. illegally, STD tested. And instead of reporting it to the police they advised the “pimp,” about how to get the services needed, some even told him how the young ladies could continue working during their healing 2-week period after having an abortion. Last time I checked, a “pimp” with underage women, in the “sex business,” is human trafficking. Not once did they confront the “pimp” about his illegal activity. They just turned the other cheek and allowed these “young women” to continue being prostitutes. The sad part is, this happened at Planned Parenthoods in the states of New Jersey, New York, Washington D.C, Arizona, Indiana and Virginia. It doesn’t matter what your stance is, whether you’re pro-life or not, human trafficking is wrong. Nothing justifies it. The fact that this happened in several clinics is too much. The growing trend of neutrality within Planned Parenthood has gone too far here. Regardless of their excuses that these woman deserve help regardless of their status is not justifiable. Sitting there and listening to a “pimp” talk about his young girls and just going along with it is wrong. Through their services, the clinics were giving the ok for illegal activity to occur and even letting those young woman return to a sad life of selling their body against their will.
What’s even more disturbing is that our tax dollars are going to support clinics such as these. Last year Planned Parenthood received about $363 million from our tax dollars. For what? So they can strip young women of their human dignity through covering up abusive relationships and sex trafficking through abortions? Nothing in my eyes can justify this. It’s astonishing to think that Planned Parenthood who claims they want to “help” young women, would allow them to re-enter these relationships, whether it’s pimping or not. My heart goes out to the women who face the tough choice of abortion, it must be an awful place to be in, but they need to know that abortion is not the only option. There is hope for them and killing your baby or returning to a life of prostitution doesn’t have to be the only way out. It’s our duty to help each other find hope. And that hope is life. A life without pimping or killing innocent lives. These women seeking help at clinics such as these want solutions, not more problems.
Right now pro-life advocates are pushing a bill on Capitol Hill to stop tax-funded abortions. Fox News reported a Poll that was conducted last November showed that 61 percent of Americans opposed paying for abortions. This included 70 percent of women.
It bothers me that our tax dollars support this new culture of death. What scares me is what if there was no set up by Live Action. What if that pimp was not an actor, but real? Reality is, this scenario is probably not new to these clinics. Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to help these women. If they did, they would have not offered services to these pimps in the beginning. They tell them it’s best to abort their child, then send them on their way. What they don’t have to deal with are the emotional and sometimes physical scars left with these women. The consequences they risk; guilt and depression that leads to suicide, sterilization, life-threatening infections and sometimes even death. I don’t want to pay for this. I care about my sisters too much.
What’s even more disturbing is that our tax dollars are going to support clinics such as these. Last year Planned Parenthood received about $363 million from our tax dollars. For what? So they can strip young women of their human dignity through covering up abusive relationships and sex trafficking through abortions? Nothing in my eyes can justify this. It’s astonishing to think that Planned Parenthood who claims they want to “help” young women, would allow them to re-enter these relationships, whether it’s pimping or not. My heart goes out to the women who face the tough choice of abortion, it must be an awful place to be in, but they need to know that abortion is not the only option. There is hope for them and killing your baby or returning to a life of prostitution doesn’t have to be the only way out. It’s our duty to help each other find hope. And that hope is life. A life without pimping or killing innocent lives. These women seeking help at clinics such as these want solutions, not more problems.
Right now pro-life advocates are pushing a bill on Capitol Hill to stop tax-funded abortions. Fox News reported a Poll that was conducted last November showed that 61 percent of Americans opposed paying for abortions. This included 70 percent of women.
It bothers me that our tax dollars support this new culture of death. What scares me is what if there was no set up by Live Action. What if that pimp was not an actor, but real? Reality is, this scenario is probably not new to these clinics. Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to help these women. If they did, they would have not offered services to these pimps in the beginning. They tell them it’s best to abort their child, then send them on their way. What they don’t have to deal with are the emotional and sometimes physical scars left with these women. The consequences they risk; guilt and depression that leads to suicide, sterilization, life-threatening infections and sometimes even death. I don’t want to pay for this. I care about my sisters too much.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Public Intellectual: John Calvin
John Calvin is a public intellectual who used his insight about the bible to reform a large sect of Christianity- although not all. A philosopher of the word of God, his extremist view points have left a mark on Protestants throughout the world, as well as a mess for many other Christians to clean up. John Calvin, although highly regarded as a revolutionary intellect in the Protestant community, contradicts his own credibility as a theologian and expert of the bible, through his “5-point theory,” which is not even scripturally supported and thus often challenged by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Perhaps the most ironic part of John Calvin’s life is the fact that he was raised in a devout Catholic family, which he then later broke away from to become one of the most prominent reformers of the protestant denomination. But before I get into all that, lets back up a little. Calvin was born in France in 1509. His father wanted him to become a Catholic priest due to the family’s close ties with the local Cathedral, but Calvin had other plans. He went to study at the College de Marche in Paris to prepare for the university. At this time, around the year 1527, Calvin was still a practicing Catholic, but was friends with many who were influenced by the writings of Martin Luther and Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples, which were popular in Paris at the time. So naturally this was a factor that caused Calvin to eventually leave the Church and join the reformation as well. In 1528 Calvin went to study law in Orleans. After receiving his degree in 1533 he left Paris because he associated with many who wrote against the Catholic Church. And basically to make a long story a little shorter, he eventually broke away from the Catholic Church by 1536. Calvin then proceeded to spend the rest of his life, until his death in 1564, mainly in Geneva and Strasbourg where he preached and wrote about the bible, his doctrine, The Institutes of the Christian Church, as well as others.
The core of John Calvin’s teachings was based on taking the Holy Scripture literally. In other words, if it’s not in the bible don’t believe it. If it is, you have to follow it word for word. Another one of Calvin’s teachings was his idea of predestination and the “doctrine of the elect.” This led to Calvin’s famous “5 Points,” or otherwise know today as “5- Point Calvinism.” And this, fellow readers, is where it’s about to get interesting.
Now before I get into what exactly the 5-points of Calvinism are, I want to point out that I can see why so many may have respected Calvin as a preacher and even an intellect. I mean let’s face it he knew the bible, literally, from front to cover. And as a non-Protestant I respect those who may believe his teachings. But as a Roman Catholic I feel that it is my duty to challenge Calvin’s 5-point theory. I believe he is wrong, and it is hard to believe that some one who claimed to have been so knowledgeable about the Christian faith was so off target. Calvin used scripture as the basis for everything he taught, or Sola Scriptura, which is Latin for “by scripture alone.” Yet nowhere in the bible is Sola Scriptura supported. Instead it says, “Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth,” 1 John 3:18. And yet Ironically it is scripture, the very heart of what Calvin taught, that contradicts Calvin’s ideas about faith.
So with this said, as a Catholic I challenge his beliefs about faith and respond to them from my Catholic perspective.
And so ladies and gentlemen, the 5 points of Calvinism…
Calvinism is known as the acronym T.U.L.I.P. This stands for:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Total Depravity is the idea that we as humans inherited sin through Adam in the Garden of Eden. Calvin taught since we, as humans are so sinful we are therefore unable to desire or freely choose God in this unholy state of being. Because of this, God has already “predestined” those who are to believe in him and be saved.
I’m sorry, but I beg to differ. Yes, there are passages in the bible that point out man’s sinful nature. And we’re all sinners, because we’re human. But if God predestined who was to be his followers, than Jesus died in vain. Calvin teaches that there is no free will. If this is so then all our experiences are false. For example, when I went to church last week it’s because I freely wanted to go and believe on my own in Jesus Christ. But Calvin would think that God is making me go because I am just too spiritually dirty to decide that on my own. I’m sorry but as Catholics we teach that God is love. And when you love someone you would never force them to love you are be with you. True love is the longing for others to be happy. Because of this God does not want to force himself upon his children, but rather give them the freedom to come to Him to be healed from any pain and forgiven of any sin. Calvin is wrong. God loves all his creation, or else he wouldn’t of made them! And because He loves us all so much he gives them all an opportunity to choose Him and be saved. If you want to get technical a simple example that refutes Calvin’s teaching are the Ten Commandments. God would not have sent us these rules if we were not able to willfully, on our own choose to obey them. Instead He would have just saved the piece of stone, no Moses, and just picked the people He chose to obey Him.
Unconditional Election stems from Total Depravity. Unconditional election is the idea that God pre-elects all those who are to be saved. Well, this can be proven not true through the very Word of God found in the Gospel of Matthew 23: 37, “ Jerusalem, Jerusalem you who killed the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen who gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!” In this verse one can pick up on one key point. Here God is telling the Israelites that he wanted them to follow Him and show them the greatness of His love, but they denied Him. Therefore the people of Jerusalem had free will. So Total Depravity is false. And because this is false, God also does not predestine who will be saved. He wanted Jerusalem to be saved but they did not obey him, so therefore God did not come just for a select few that would automatically choose to believe in Him, but rather wants everyone to choose Him. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires all for salvation and this, as stated above can be proven through scripture.
The next Calvinistic point is Limited Atonement. This means that Jesus only died for the “elect” that God predestined. As a Christian this theory disturbs me. The Catholic Church, and most other Christian denominations, teach that Jesus died on the cross for everyone! Many verses from the bible prove this idea of Calvin to be completely wrong. Probably one of the most well known bible verses, John 3:16-17 says, “For God so loved the world that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Or in 1 John 2:2, “He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.” Key word: World. World means everyone- not just a selected group. Once again, Calvin is contradicted through the same scripture he studied his whole life.
The next point of Calvin is Irresistible Grace, which means God only sends His Grace and Holy Spirit to his “elect” to help them turn from their sinful ways and helps them better understand God’s word. This is a grace that Calvin taught could not be resisted by the “elect.” The Catholic Church teaches that God’s grace is open to all. Calvin’s theory is challenged in verses like Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God has appeared, saving all,” or in John 1:16, “From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace.”
The last point of Calvinism, Perseverance of Saints, ties directly into irresistible grace. This is the theory that once you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (in Calvin’s case, those elected by God), then you are eternally saved; nothing you can do will prevent you from enjoying eternal glory in Heaven one day. As Catholics we believe that there are grievous sins that, if willfully not repented for, do have the potential to separate you from salvation. Man has the free will to turn away from God’s ways, and it’s up to us to ask for the forgiveness of those sins. We are not perfect “elect” who will always be successful in our faith. We are human and we make mistakes. We all are in dire need of a savior, some one to help us get through life and pick us up when we fall. Calvin’s theory is a mockery of what Heaven is- a final prize for those who lived in God’s ways, trying their best despite the many challenges of life. St. Paul speaks of Heaven in his First letter to the Corinthians, “Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the crown? Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadow boxing. No I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). St. Paul talks about winning a crown. This crown is heaven. Believers are in this game of life, and in order to one day reach heaven we must work hard, through being a good person and obeying God. Life can be hard and following God’s way can be difficult, that’s why we must “train” ourselves to overcome these temptations and always turn and rely on God in our times of need. To sum it up, heaven is a reward for those who persevered in this life, despite the many temptations to turn from God.
The word of God is no doubt important to every Christian. However, John Calvin, as much as he knew the bible, was contradicted by scripture itself. Christianity revolves around God’s love for all and His longing for everyone to experience His glory. Although he is long gone, I respect John Calvin as a person and as someone who did love God, but as a Catholic Christian, I challenge Calvin’s teachings because it skews who God really is- Hope and Salvation for all.
Perhaps the most ironic part of John Calvin’s life is the fact that he was raised in a devout Catholic family, which he then later broke away from to become one of the most prominent reformers of the protestant denomination. But before I get into all that, lets back up a little. Calvin was born in France in 1509. His father wanted him to become a Catholic priest due to the family’s close ties with the local Cathedral, but Calvin had other plans. He went to study at the College de Marche in Paris to prepare for the university. At this time, around the year 1527, Calvin was still a practicing Catholic, but was friends with many who were influenced by the writings of Martin Luther and Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples, which were popular in Paris at the time. So naturally this was a factor that caused Calvin to eventually leave the Church and join the reformation as well. In 1528 Calvin went to study law in Orleans. After receiving his degree in 1533 he left Paris because he associated with many who wrote against the Catholic Church. And basically to make a long story a little shorter, he eventually broke away from the Catholic Church by 1536. Calvin then proceeded to spend the rest of his life, until his death in 1564, mainly in Geneva and Strasbourg where he preached and wrote about the bible, his doctrine, The Institutes of the Christian Church, as well as others.
The core of John Calvin’s teachings was based on taking the Holy Scripture literally. In other words, if it’s not in the bible don’t believe it. If it is, you have to follow it word for word. Another one of Calvin’s teachings was his idea of predestination and the “doctrine of the elect.” This led to Calvin’s famous “5 Points,” or otherwise know today as “5- Point Calvinism.” And this, fellow readers, is where it’s about to get interesting.
Now before I get into what exactly the 5-points of Calvinism are, I want to point out that I can see why so many may have respected Calvin as a preacher and even an intellect. I mean let’s face it he knew the bible, literally, from front to cover. And as a non-Protestant I respect those who may believe his teachings. But as a Roman Catholic I feel that it is my duty to challenge Calvin’s 5-point theory. I believe he is wrong, and it is hard to believe that some one who claimed to have been so knowledgeable about the Christian faith was so off target. Calvin used scripture as the basis for everything he taught, or Sola Scriptura, which is Latin for “by scripture alone.” Yet nowhere in the bible is Sola Scriptura supported. Instead it says, “Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth,” 1 John 3:18. And yet Ironically it is scripture, the very heart of what Calvin taught, that contradicts Calvin’s ideas about faith.
So with this said, as a Catholic I challenge his beliefs about faith and respond to them from my Catholic perspective.
And so ladies and gentlemen, the 5 points of Calvinism…
Calvinism is known as the acronym T.U.L.I.P. This stands for:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
Total Depravity is the idea that we as humans inherited sin through Adam in the Garden of Eden. Calvin taught since we, as humans are so sinful we are therefore unable to desire or freely choose God in this unholy state of being. Because of this, God has already “predestined” those who are to believe in him and be saved.
I’m sorry, but I beg to differ. Yes, there are passages in the bible that point out man’s sinful nature. And we’re all sinners, because we’re human. But if God predestined who was to be his followers, than Jesus died in vain. Calvin teaches that there is no free will. If this is so then all our experiences are false. For example, when I went to church last week it’s because I freely wanted to go and believe on my own in Jesus Christ. But Calvin would think that God is making me go because I am just too spiritually dirty to decide that on my own. I’m sorry but as Catholics we teach that God is love. And when you love someone you would never force them to love you are be with you. True love is the longing for others to be happy. Because of this God does not want to force himself upon his children, but rather give them the freedom to come to Him to be healed from any pain and forgiven of any sin. Calvin is wrong. God loves all his creation, or else he wouldn’t of made them! And because He loves us all so much he gives them all an opportunity to choose Him and be saved. If you want to get technical a simple example that refutes Calvin’s teaching are the Ten Commandments. God would not have sent us these rules if we were not able to willfully, on our own choose to obey them. Instead He would have just saved the piece of stone, no Moses, and just picked the people He chose to obey Him.
Unconditional Election stems from Total Depravity. Unconditional election is the idea that God pre-elects all those who are to be saved. Well, this can be proven not true through the very Word of God found in the Gospel of Matthew 23: 37, “ Jerusalem, Jerusalem you who killed the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together as a hen who gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!” In this verse one can pick up on one key point. Here God is telling the Israelites that he wanted them to follow Him and show them the greatness of His love, but they denied Him. Therefore the people of Jerusalem had free will. So Total Depravity is false. And because this is false, God also does not predestine who will be saved. He wanted Jerusalem to be saved but they did not obey him, so therefore God did not come just for a select few that would automatically choose to believe in Him, but rather wants everyone to choose Him. The Catholic Church teaches that God desires all for salvation and this, as stated above can be proven through scripture.
The next Calvinistic point is Limited Atonement. This means that Jesus only died for the “elect” that God predestined. As a Christian this theory disturbs me. The Catholic Church, and most other Christian denominations, teach that Jesus died on the cross for everyone! Many verses from the bible prove this idea of Calvin to be completely wrong. Probably one of the most well known bible verses, John 3:16-17 says, “For God so loved the world that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Or in 1 John 2:2, “He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.” Key word: World. World means everyone- not just a selected group. Once again, Calvin is contradicted through the same scripture he studied his whole life.
The next point of Calvin is Irresistible Grace, which means God only sends His Grace and Holy Spirit to his “elect” to help them turn from their sinful ways and helps them better understand God’s word. This is a grace that Calvin taught could not be resisted by the “elect.” The Catholic Church teaches that God’s grace is open to all. Calvin’s theory is challenged in verses like Titus 2:11, “For the grace of God has appeared, saving all,” or in John 1:16, “From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace.”
The last point of Calvinism, Perseverance of Saints, ties directly into irresistible grace. This is the theory that once you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (in Calvin’s case, those elected by God), then you are eternally saved; nothing you can do will prevent you from enjoying eternal glory in Heaven one day. As Catholics we believe that there are grievous sins that, if willfully not repented for, do have the potential to separate you from salvation. Man has the free will to turn away from God’s ways, and it’s up to us to ask for the forgiveness of those sins. We are not perfect “elect” who will always be successful in our faith. We are human and we make mistakes. We all are in dire need of a savior, some one to help us get through life and pick us up when we fall. Calvin’s theory is a mockery of what Heaven is- a final prize for those who lived in God’s ways, trying their best despite the many challenges of life. St. Paul speaks of Heaven in his First letter to the Corinthians, “Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the crown? Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadow boxing. No I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:24-27). St. Paul talks about winning a crown. This crown is heaven. Believers are in this game of life, and in order to one day reach heaven we must work hard, through being a good person and obeying God. Life can be hard and following God’s way can be difficult, that’s why we must “train” ourselves to overcome these temptations and always turn and rely on God in our times of need. To sum it up, heaven is a reward for those who persevered in this life, despite the many temptations to turn from God.
The word of God is no doubt important to every Christian. However, John Calvin, as much as he knew the bible, was contradicted by scripture itself. Christianity revolves around God’s love for all and His longing for everyone to experience His glory. Although he is long gone, I respect John Calvin as a person and as someone who did love God, but as a Catholic Christian, I challenge Calvin’s teachings because it skews who God really is- Hope and Salvation for all.
Friday, January 21, 2011
PUBLIC SQUARE: To The Unborn, With Love We Remember You.
tM January is pro-life month. This means that marches are going on all over the country in support of pro-life causes such as the end to abortion. The biggest one is The Walk for Life and it seems awesome! But the sad part is that while typing this I’m fearful. I’m scared of my words being offensive to a pro-choice reader or that people who don’t necessarily believe the way I do will think I’m being insensitive to those women who have gone through an abortion. They may think I don’t understand what they’re going through or their life story, which supposedly justified their choice to abort. And they’re right. I’m not here to judge. I’m here to stand up for the life of the unborn. I understand that abortion is a sensitive subject to many. Heck, I had to mull the thought over about whether I should write about this for a few days. And truly my Heart goes out to all the women who have been affected by abortion. I may not know the lives of all these women but I want to shed light on the lives of the babies whom none of us will ever know. I'm not fearful to share my views anymore.
Consider Nelson Mandela, Babe Ruth, Steve Jobs, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jamie Foxx, Nat King Cole, Willie Nelson, George Washington Carver, Faith Hill, John Lennon, J.R.R Tolkien, Aristotle, Jesse Jackson, and Langston Hughes (just to name a few). Our world truly would not be the same without these people. Funny thing though! One thing they all have in common- they’re adopted. Their parents chose life. In the United States, about 1.3 million babies are aborted every year. Just think how many more people like those previously listed could be contributing to this world had they just been given a chance.
A life begins at the moment of conception. What a bold statement. Very controversial, but I have no shame in saying it. A life begins at the moment of conception. Don’t believe me? Well some of the top doctors do, because they have done enough research to prove it.
Like Dr. Jerome Lejeune, who was a well-respected physician, Doctor of Science, and a Professor of genetics for 25 years. Dr. Lejeune actually founded the genetic cause for Down’s Syndrome. He was the recipient of many awards and said the proof that life begins at conception lied in the root and creation of a DNA molecule.
A quote from Dr. Lejeune off the “Physicians for Life” website says:
“Each of us has a very precise starting moment which is the time at which the whole necessary and sufficient genetic information is gathered inside one cell, the fertilized egg, and this is the moment of fertilization. There is not the slightest doubt about that and we know that this information is written on a kind of ribbon which we call the DNA…Nature has used the smallest possible language to carry the information from father to children, from mother to children, from generation to generation…At no time is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person, which you are now. You were and are a human being."
Nicely put Dr. Lejeune.
But we can’t forget the mothers too. Whether many women want to admit it or not, they suffer when they abort. How can you not? Now is time more than ever to show love to these women who desperately need it the most.
Like I said before, my heart goes out to these women who made the painful decision. Post- Abortion Trauma often causes women to feel guilty and depressed even to the point of suicide (Don’t believe me? Then please look it up). To top it off, not only does abortion cause emotional and mental pain, but physical pain as well. Abortions can pose as a health threat to women, some even leading to infections, bleeding, fever, cervical laceration, future miscarriages, and in some cases, even death. Society has to take this into account. Although its understandable to see where pro-choice advocates are coming from, shouldn’t this information be enough for them to see that abortion only leads to more suffering.
I don’t know about you, but if my neighbor was about to make a decision that could one day potentially lead them down the road of deep depression to the point where they consider taking their own life, I would want to intervene and help them make a better choice. Religiously speaking , I am my brothers (or in this case, sister’s) keeper. I don’t know one person who regretted having their baby after giving birth. And society should stop walking on egg shells around people and start spreading hope to the many women who have an “unwanted” pregnancy. For starters, what about adoption? Did you read how many famous people were adopted. Just think these babies could have been the doctor to cure diseases like Cancer or HIV, or maybe the first women president? The possibilities are endless. Hope. That’s a word more of these women could use. If they’re in an abusive relationship or can’t financially afford a baby, there are many programs that provide a safe place and resources. Hope. Let’s spread it.
In the Wise Words of Dr. Seuss, “A person is a person no matter how small.” So to all the babies who never got to experience the sunshine, their first steps, or dunking their face in the frosting of their first birthday cake, know that you are loved. May the month of January be a time to remember you. Happy Birthday. tM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)