Today I am wishing everyone a very Happy World Kindness Day! If you did not take the time to be particularly kind to someone you normally would have taken for granted, then I urge you to do it before going to bed, or when you get up tomorrow...and if you can - continue doing this every day. One truly kind act every day. It sounds easy enough but I am sure that we often forget to do this.
Need a suggestion of kind acts? Start small: smile and say hello at a stranger and wish them a happy day (and please, this is not the time to hit on someone - just give them a genuine hello); bake (or buy - buying is legitimate too) cookies or some other delicious goody for someone who is feeling down; go to a Starbucks and pay for the coffee of the person behind you - someone did this for my cousin and it just really made her day; take the time to email a friend you have not spoken to in awhile; now that the weather has turned cold, do what I like to do - drive around your neighborhood and if you see someone who is homeless, offer to buy them a warm cup of tea or coffee or hot chocolate - their choice and if you have time, stop at a local drug store and pick up some food, water, gloves, blanket or anything else which you think might be appreciated. Kindness comes in all forms and the smallest act can bestow immense happiness on the recipient.
I would be remiss if I did not take the time to mention the Philippines. On this day of Kindness, let us not forget those most in need. If you wish to assist the victims of the Haiyan typhoon, here is a link to some of the different options available.
I leave you with this quote from the Dalai Lama: "This is my simple religion. There is
no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own
brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.”
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
Veteran's Day
Today is Veteran's Day. While many are honoring the deeds of those men and women who served as part of the military of this country (the United States), others criticize this day for celebrating the killing of others. As a Christian I am of two minds on this:
On the one hand I find the killing of others to be abhorrent. I want to live in a world where we do not resort to violence - where groups such as the United Nations can mediate fruitful conversation between different groups, countries, etc. I would give anything to live in a world where no country had a military because there was no need for one.
The issue is that this is my utopia, not reality. The United Nations often will send in peacekeeping forces when necessary. The problem with this is that there is a lack of resources but more importantly, these forces cannot use force. When a peaceful group comes in to try and get a violent one to cease hostilities, it is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) to achieve peace. I mention this because I have seen a few of my friends posting how they congratulate those who have been conscientious objectors. A conscientious objector is someone who does not want to be involved in a war on grounds of freedom of thought, conscience or religion. In the United States, a conscientious objector needs to object to war in any form and must also be sincere in his or her belief.
While I commend those who are conscientious objectors for following their hearts, I do not believe that they are the only ones who should be recognized. Veterans at some point or other have put their lives on the line. What they do gives me and millions of Americans benefits which we enjoy on a daily basis. I get to wake up every morning in a country not ruled by terror and war. I can go hiking and get a pancake breakfast and then go and protest against my military (if I chose to do so) without fear of getting my head cut off. To think that part of that is not due to the US's military presence is naive. Please do not mistake me - at the end of the day I believe in the commandment: thou shalt not kill. I think human life is precious and I think it is truly sad that the way we counter violence is with more violence. I do not adhere to the Exodus eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I believe in the saying that such leaves the world blind and toothless. Yet this is the world in which we live. Would you have had the United States sit out of World War II and allow the Nazis to continue their war and their atrocities? As much as I hate to write this, I think that military power can accomplish much when it comes to international diplomacy. I do not think this speaks well of the human race, but it is the state of the world. What incentive do violent people committing genocide have to peacefully negotiate if they can just take everything that they want? A little show of strength can go a long way. This is one of the reason that the United States is such a powerful country and has such clout in the international community. I hope that one day this will not be the case - that the world will not be one big playground where the bullies push the smaller kids around while the larger children try to put a stop to this.
Believe me when I say I am aware of the negatives that can come with the military. Several years ago I protested against the School of the Americas because this use of the military I feel is truly awful. I hate that our politicians determine which conflicts we enter into and they often choose it based on our own selfish interests, rather than for the good of our fellow men and women suffering from the brutal acts of others. I hate that there are those who join the military and take advantage of their position and inflict suffering of their own and feel no remorse over it - but these are the exception, not the rule. I think of the people I have known who joined the military: those who did it out of pride and love for their country, those who felt they could make a difference by being part of the military, those who were trying to gain citizenship by enlisting, those trying to get scholarships...I have known husbands who missed the birth of a child because they were serving abroad. We all have heard the stories about the post traumatic stress disorder which afflicts so many veterans. We know that homelessness is also an issue that some veterans deal with. Veterans who return from war, often do not get the assistance they need. It makes me think of the Doctor Who episode: A Town Called Mercy in which a Gunslinger travels through space to find the alien who enhanced him and made him into the perfect killing machine. He did not have a home to come back to after the war, so alone and outraged, the Gunslinger chases the alien, seeking revenge. In the end, he obtains said revenge but feels empty. He tells the doctor, "I am a creature of war. I have no role to play during peace" - to which the doctor replies, "except maybe to protect it." The Gunslinger ends up becoming the marshal of the town, protecting its people.
To conclude, on this Veteran's Day I say: I am not celebrating war, the killing of others or violence but am rather honoring those who have given so much. It is important not to forget at what price war comes and to value each life. Perhaps in doing so, war will eventually become a thing of the past and we can all just live our lives in peace.
On the one hand I find the killing of others to be abhorrent. I want to live in a world where we do not resort to violence - where groups such as the United Nations can mediate fruitful conversation between different groups, countries, etc. I would give anything to live in a world where no country had a military because there was no need for one.
The issue is that this is my utopia, not reality. The United Nations often will send in peacekeeping forces when necessary. The problem with this is that there is a lack of resources but more importantly, these forces cannot use force. When a peaceful group comes in to try and get a violent one to cease hostilities, it is exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) to achieve peace. I mention this because I have seen a few of my friends posting how they congratulate those who have been conscientious objectors. A conscientious objector is someone who does not want to be involved in a war on grounds of freedom of thought, conscience or religion. In the United States, a conscientious objector needs to object to war in any form and must also be sincere in his or her belief.
While I commend those who are conscientious objectors for following their hearts, I do not believe that they are the only ones who should be recognized. Veterans at some point or other have put their lives on the line. What they do gives me and millions of Americans benefits which we enjoy on a daily basis. I get to wake up every morning in a country not ruled by terror and war. I can go hiking and get a pancake breakfast and then go and protest against my military (if I chose to do so) without fear of getting my head cut off. To think that part of that is not due to the US's military presence is naive. Please do not mistake me - at the end of the day I believe in the commandment: thou shalt not kill. I think human life is precious and I think it is truly sad that the way we counter violence is with more violence. I do not adhere to the Exodus eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I believe in the saying that such leaves the world blind and toothless. Yet this is the world in which we live. Would you have had the United States sit out of World War II and allow the Nazis to continue their war and their atrocities? As much as I hate to write this, I think that military power can accomplish much when it comes to international diplomacy. I do not think this speaks well of the human race, but it is the state of the world. What incentive do violent people committing genocide have to peacefully negotiate if they can just take everything that they want? A little show of strength can go a long way. This is one of the reason that the United States is such a powerful country and has such clout in the international community. I hope that one day this will not be the case - that the world will not be one big playground where the bullies push the smaller kids around while the larger children try to put a stop to this.
Believe me when I say I am aware of the negatives that can come with the military. Several years ago I protested against the School of the Americas because this use of the military I feel is truly awful. I hate that our politicians determine which conflicts we enter into and they often choose it based on our own selfish interests, rather than for the good of our fellow men and women suffering from the brutal acts of others. I hate that there are those who join the military and take advantage of their position and inflict suffering of their own and feel no remorse over it - but these are the exception, not the rule. I think of the people I have known who joined the military: those who did it out of pride and love for their country, those who felt they could make a difference by being part of the military, those who were trying to gain citizenship by enlisting, those trying to get scholarships...I have known husbands who missed the birth of a child because they were serving abroad. We all have heard the stories about the post traumatic stress disorder which afflicts so many veterans. We know that homelessness is also an issue that some veterans deal with. Veterans who return from war, often do not get the assistance they need. It makes me think of the Doctor Who episode: A Town Called Mercy in which a Gunslinger travels through space to find the alien who enhanced him and made him into the perfect killing machine. He did not have a home to come back to after the war, so alone and outraged, the Gunslinger chases the alien, seeking revenge. In the end, he obtains said revenge but feels empty. He tells the doctor, "I am a creature of war. I have no role to play during peace" - to which the doctor replies, "except maybe to protect it." The Gunslinger ends up becoming the marshal of the town, protecting its people.
To conclude, on this Veteran's Day I say: I am not celebrating war, the killing of others or violence but am rather honoring those who have given so much. It is important not to forget at what price war comes and to value each life. Perhaps in doing so, war will eventually become a thing of the past and we can all just live our lives in peace.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
The Supreme Court & Same-Sex Marriage
Good afternoon. This blog post is several months late but here it is. On Wednesday, June 26th of this year, the Supreme Court ruled on two important cases regarding same-sex marriage: United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Regarding Windsor, the Court made the monumental decision to rule Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. In Hollingsworth, the Court decided that it lacked standing. Because of this, the California District Court's decision regarding Proposition 8, is still the valid state of law.
United States v. Windsor
Let me start by examining the federal matter. Edith Windsor was married to Thea Spyer in 2007. When Thea passed away, she and Edith had been together for over 40 years. This article shows some of the photos of the loving couple. I have so much to say here that I cannot go into the details I have read about this relationship but the point is that they had a good, long life together filled with love. Windsor, who inherited her wife's estate, was required to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes which she would not have had to pay had she been in a heterosexual marriage, thereby qualifying her for an unlimited spousal deduction. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling with Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor in the majority, ruled that Section 3 of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of people that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. DOMA's reach was quite vast and extended even over those states which passed laws clearly seeking to protect same-sex marriage. The deviation from recognizing state applications of marriage was disconcerting to the justices. Justice Ginsburg had previously stated that DOMA was setting up same-sex marriage as the "skim milk" of unions - a point which Justice Kennedy furthered while issuing the opinion of the court: "DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity." To set up a marriage disparity is troubling, at best. Imagine the impact that this has not only on the couples, but on the children upon realizing that their parents are not being given the same rights.
Chief Justice Roberts dissented saying, "At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act's principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry." This statement, though very flowery, is extremely naive. As Justice Kagan highlighted during oral arguments, "Congress decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." That was clearly the reasoning behind the Defense of Marriage Act - heck, even its very name shows that Congress was trying to protect traditional marriage, thereby targeting those in same-sex relationships. As Kagan so eloquently stated, "When Congress targets a group that is not everybody’s favorite group in the world, that we look at those cases — even if they’re not suspect — with some rigor to say: Do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress’ judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus?" Though Chief Justice Roberts may be reluctant to say that Congress acted in a bigoted manner when it passed DOMA, I have no such qualms. I am very pleased that this unjust law has been seen for what it truly is.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
California has been a battleground regarding same-sex marriage starting back in 2000, as evidenced by this timeline. Hollingsworth v. Perry was particularly interesting because sponsors of Prop 8 were the ones to bring the case before the Supreme Court. Based on this and the fact that public officials refused to challenge the District Court's ruling (which had also been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). The District Court had ruled that Prop 8 violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because there was no rational basis for denying same-sex couples marriage licenses.
Explanation of Different Type of Judicial Review for Due Process or Equal Protection Cases:
Rational basis review - The law needs to be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental interest. Of all judicial review, this is the most lenient and will allow for the lawmaker to get away with more.
Intermediate scrutiny - The law must further an "important" government interest by means that are "substantially related" to that interest. This level of scrutiny is typically used in quasi-suspect classifications, such as gender.
Strict scrutiny - The law must be justified by a "compelling" governmental interest and must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest. In these types of cases the court will also examine whether there are less restrictive means of accomplishing the same thing. This level of scrutiny applies for suspect classifications such as race, national origin, religion, alienage and poverty.
You may wonder why I am going into detail regarding the different types of judicial review for this case. It is because the LGBT community does not get the benefit of being treated as either a suspect or quasi-suspect class, despite all the hate crimes and discrimination this group has endured. Although I knew the Court was likely to decide this matter on standing, as it did, I had truly hoped that the Supreme Court would tackle this issue and uphold the District Court's ruling. In my utopia, the Court would have written an opinion about the rational basis review, perhaps granting the LGBT community a greater protected status. I still hope that that day will come soon. For now, I am content that same-sex couples have resumed marrying in the state of California.
Religious Analysis
Ok so this is a religion blog, right? So here comes the religiously relevant portion. First, let me take the time to emphasize the fact that there are religious folk on both sides of the same-sex marriage argument. There are those of us who support it and there are others who do not. It is important to see religious people as the diverse group that we actually are.
First let me turn towards those who supported the Court's decision. A few days after the decision, the National Cathedral rang its bells in celebration for the Supreme Court's rulings.
Now for the other side. One writer in the American Spectator discussed how Galen Carey, D.C. representative of the National Association of Evangelicals, was upset that the Supreme Court did not uphold "marriage and democracy". My reaction to this is that 1) Windsor was not even about upholding marriage but rather about extending federal benefits to those who were already married in states which allow gay marriage. Isn't that all about the democratic process? Wouldn't refusing to acknowledge a marriage which was voted for and allowed by a state be snubbing democracy? My question is when did marriage and the government become so intrinsically linked?
As the writer in the American Spectator wrote, "They instinctively understand with Cardinal Dolan that the 'common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage.'" What "common good" is this of which he speaks? Are we going to get into heaven quicker if we prevent same-sex marriages? How does this benefit children, in the slightest, especially the children of same-sex couples? If anything, they will be hurt by being relegated to some second-class citizen status which comes from their parents' marriage not given equal status. If the argument is being made that same-sex couples who adopt, will be hurting their children because kids need the parenting from a man and a woman, there is no evidence of this, regardless of whatever incorrect things Scalia chooses to say. Same-sex couples are going to continue being attracted to their partners. These same-sex relationships are not going to go away and the couples will continue creating families regardless of whether every church tries to stop their marriage or not. Trying to prevent couples from marrying and those who are already married from obtaining benefits is completely pointless and bigoted. You don't have to agree with it, but please do not discriminate against another group. I would have hoped that we as a society would have evolved passed such pettiness.
I mean, what's the point? As I've said before, same sex couples are going to be attracted to the same sex and are going to continue being in relationships with members of the same sex and are going to create families regardless of whether others are trying to stop them from marrying. To deny them marriage is to say you do not believe in the equal treatment of others, that you are part of a privileged group and you wish to keep others out of it, that you do not care that other states have voted to allow same-sex marriage - that you want to deny them any useful, federal fairness and fly in the face of everything that is just. Just to give some clarification on the matter, here is a chart to show you what has changed along with this wonderfully cheeky list and this. As you can see, nothing has changed on a state-by-state basis. The federal law merely has to reflect the state's choice. There is no good reason to deny federal marriage benefits to couples whose union has been acknowledged by their state. The only reason to do this is discrimination. Georget Takei discussed the "ick" factor that exists in society around same-sex couples which has led to said discrimination. Much as Dennis the Peasant tells King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that, "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government", Takei stated that "'ick' is not a proper basis for constitutional jurisprudence." I believe that "ick" is no basis for denying love between two people. I am so tired of the discrepancies in the thought process of certain religious people: marriage has to be the ultimate goal between two people who love each other - except if they are of the same sex in which case we must do everything possible to prevent that from occurring. How does that make sense?
So many happy, loving couples have gained great benefit from these decisions. Think of the couple who were together for 19 years. They were married but one of the men was going to be deported back to Australia because of DOMA - which was preventing his husband from obtaining a visa for him. Even though he was not deported at the end of the day, the fact remains that there were many same-sex couples out there who could not keep their spouse in the country because the federal government did not acknowledge such marriages.
In the DOMA decision, the Chief Justice found it necessary to point out that the Court did not decide on whether states could continue to use the traditional definition of marriage but rather just made this applicable for those marriages which have already been legally recognized by the state. Clearly this is a matter left for another day but I look forward to a time when we can tackle this conversation with open minds and open hearts .
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Religion & Homosexuality
Ok - so I was hoping to blog more before getting into the real controversial issues. Since the Supreme Court should be releasing its decisions on Hollingsworth v. Perry as well as United States v. Windsor tomorrow, I figured this would be a timely issue. For those who may not know, both cases touch on same sex marriage. I will talk about the details of these cases tomorrow in a follow-up about the Supreme Court's decision. Now perhaps you are wondering why I am discussing same sex marriage in a religion blog. It is simple - without the conservatively religious, there would be very little opposition to same sex marriage.
As I see it, the argument against same-sex marriage is coming from people who do not believe that their religion permits it. I remember having dinner with a friend a couple of years ago, who honestly is more open than most, and we were discussing the subject of same-sex marriage. She said, "I'm not homophobic and I think they deserve rights but can't we just call it something else? Does it have to be 'marriage'"? I remember responding to her by asking that if she was in love with a woman and wanted to have a ceremony to celebrate that love, how she would feel if society wanted to label that union as something they viewed as other. Wouldn't that make you feel unaccepted by your own government? A different label is just a screen behind which society can hide their own prejudices. My friend said she had never thought about it that way and that it made sense...that perhaps granting marriage rights for everyone would be the fair thing. These are the types of conversations I love - where I can have a candid discussion with someone. I have been having these types of discussions for the last 13 years and something I have always thought about is how my religion and my belief in the rights of same sex couples can coincide.
The answer for me is a simple one: love, justice and equality. I believe in these three passionately. What I have always taken from the Bible are the stories of kindness. I have always believed that religion gave people a set of morals with which to live by and my hope is that those morals would make us better. When people use their beliefs to oppress, humiliate, alienate and discriminate against others, I feel sorry for them because they live such a life devoid of empathy or kindness. Showing kindness towards people who are exactly like you is no great feat. It shows greater strength of character if you can extend that helping hand to someone who you may not agree with but needs a friend.
One of my favorite quotes on the matter comes from Dawson's Creek (yes, yes I know but stay with me).
I always loved Grams - the strict grandmother of Jen Lindley who was a devout Christian. At one point, Jen's boyfriend at the time is criticizing Jack, a young man who is wrestling with his sexuality. Grams speaks up saying "If Jack is gay, he does not need your judgment young man. The Lord above will be the one to judge him, as he will all of us. What he needs from you, from me, from everyone else in this world is love and tolerance. If anything, that boy must feel scared and alone and he will need the understanding of his fellow man to help him through this. But save judgment for someone much more experienced than you."
I will not ask those who truly see homosexuality as a sin to change their mind. Don't get me wrong - I may engage you in conversation around it but at the end of the day, you have ever right to hold to your beliefs even if I do not agree with them. What I do ask however is that you do not deny others the right to get married and enjoy in the benefits that come from that marriage simply because of ignorance or fear. You cannot stop homosexuality - people will be attracted to and will love who they love. To deny them the right to be married is simply spiteful. I am not asking that churches perform marriages for same sex couples - each church has the right to conduct its own affairs and to decide what its beliefs are. But these cases currently revolve around the government and same sex marriage. It is appalling to me that anyone would lobby to prohibit two people who wish to celebrate and express their love through civil marriage. And aren't churches always pushing for couples to be married and not engage in premarital sex anyway? But enough on this - I hope to delve into homosexuality and the Bible in greater detail in the future. For now I wish to focus on these two particular cases.
It is my hope that tomorrow Windsor's claim will be upheld. Also, nothing would please me more than if the LGBT community could claim either intermediate or strict scrutiny in cases such as these going forward. I realize that the Supreme Court could address both cases merely on standing issues but it is my hope that at least with Windsor, it will not. If tomorrow proves to be a further uphill battle on these matters, I would just ask my fellow Christians to be true Christians and to save their judgment for someone else and open their hearts and minds to their LGBT brethren.
As I see it, the argument against same-sex marriage is coming from people who do not believe that their religion permits it. I remember having dinner with a friend a couple of years ago, who honestly is more open than most, and we were discussing the subject of same-sex marriage. She said, "I'm not homophobic and I think they deserve rights but can't we just call it something else? Does it have to be 'marriage'"? I remember responding to her by asking that if she was in love with a woman and wanted to have a ceremony to celebrate that love, how she would feel if society wanted to label that union as something they viewed as other. Wouldn't that make you feel unaccepted by your own government? A different label is just a screen behind which society can hide their own prejudices. My friend said she had never thought about it that way and that it made sense...that perhaps granting marriage rights for everyone would be the fair thing. These are the types of conversations I love - where I can have a candid discussion with someone. I have been having these types of discussions for the last 13 years and something I have always thought about is how my religion and my belief in the rights of same sex couples can coincide.
The answer for me is a simple one: love, justice and equality. I believe in these three passionately. What I have always taken from the Bible are the stories of kindness. I have always believed that religion gave people a set of morals with which to live by and my hope is that those morals would make us better. When people use their beliefs to oppress, humiliate, alienate and discriminate against others, I feel sorry for them because they live such a life devoid of empathy or kindness. Showing kindness towards people who are exactly like you is no great feat. It shows greater strength of character if you can extend that helping hand to someone who you may not agree with but needs a friend.
One of my favorite quotes on the matter comes from Dawson's Creek (yes, yes I know but stay with me).
I always loved Grams - the strict grandmother of Jen Lindley who was a devout Christian. At one point, Jen's boyfriend at the time is criticizing Jack, a young man who is wrestling with his sexuality. Grams speaks up saying "If Jack is gay, he does not need your judgment young man. The Lord above will be the one to judge him, as he will all of us. What he needs from you, from me, from everyone else in this world is love and tolerance. If anything, that boy must feel scared and alone and he will need the understanding of his fellow man to help him through this. But save judgment for someone much more experienced than you."
I will not ask those who truly see homosexuality as a sin to change their mind. Don't get me wrong - I may engage you in conversation around it but at the end of the day, you have ever right to hold to your beliefs even if I do not agree with them. What I do ask however is that you do not deny others the right to get married and enjoy in the benefits that come from that marriage simply because of ignorance or fear. You cannot stop homosexuality - people will be attracted to and will love who they love. To deny them the right to be married is simply spiteful. I am not asking that churches perform marriages for same sex couples - each church has the right to conduct its own affairs and to decide what its beliefs are. But these cases currently revolve around the government and same sex marriage. It is appalling to me that anyone would lobby to prohibit two people who wish to celebrate and express their love through civil marriage. And aren't churches always pushing for couples to be married and not engage in premarital sex anyway? But enough on this - I hope to delve into homosexuality and the Bible in greater detail in the future. For now I wish to focus on these two particular cases.
It is my hope that tomorrow Windsor's claim will be upheld. Also, nothing would please me more than if the LGBT community could claim either intermediate or strict scrutiny in cases such as these going forward. I realize that the Supreme Court could address both cases merely on standing issues but it is my hope that at least with Windsor, it will not. If tomorrow proves to be a further uphill battle on these matters, I would just ask my fellow Christians to be true Christians and to save their judgment for someone else and open their hearts and minds to their LGBT brethren.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Episode IV: A New Pope
In this last week since the papal election, what I have loved most is seeing how much hope Pope Francis has brought to so many. In the past few years I have been very concerned by the conversation the Catholic Church has had (or not had) with other religions. I feel that Pope Francis is someone who will work to promote important inter-religious dialogue.
Following shortly after the election, I saw a blog post from a friend who I had the honor of working with a few years back - Imam Yahya Hendi. Imam Hendi is the first full-time Muslim Chaplain to be hired by a university (that university being Georgetown). He was the Muslim Chaplain at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda for 22 years until he retired in 2011. He has traveled the world, expressing the need for interfaith dialogue. What really impressed me about Imam Hendi when I first met him was his sincere kindness towards everyone. I was very blessed in working for an office with five chaplains: an Imam, a Protestant Reverend, a Jewish Chaplain, a Catholic priest, and a nun. I have had many excellent employers in my past, but none fostered an environment so full of camaraderie, cooperation and genuine respect for their coworkers. As I saw these chaplains interact together, making the world's best puns and passionately planning out the office's next inter-religious activity, I was struck with the realization that perhaps inter-religious cooperation and positive global change are not such pipe dreams.
I wanted to share this facebook post here in the hope that others will see that such cooperation is already taking place. I am deeply grateful to Imam Hendi for allowing me to post his message:
"My catholic sisters and brothers,
As-Salamu ‘Alaikum,
Let me take this moment to congratulate you and the world, including that of Islam for Pope Francis. It is a great moment in our history and I am sure the future is full of hope.
Watching him talking and praying as he appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, I was deeply touched by his self-effacing humility that our religions value highly. I was also profoundly moved by his great simplicity, amazing smile, telling a joke, and asking people to pray for him, all of which, spoke of his sense of hope, peacefulness and of deep-rooted faith in the Living God.
His remarkable choice of the name Francis, evoking the saint of Assisi and his commitment to the poor, is just an incredible message of hope for the faithful and those who believe that our religions main fight is that of social justice and to give a voice for the voiceless.
His selection as the Pope emerging from a Jesuit background is with no doubt, at least in my mind, an affirmation of the Church’s transformation and its commitment to catering for the soul and the mind of the whole person with interest in interfaith dialogue and peace building with other religions and nations. I pray for more dialogue between Muslims and Catholics, a dialogue that will help build more bridges and better relations.
Let me be honest and say that I love him more for the fact that he is known for his love of animals, including birds, and for asking people to pray for him.
May God bless those led by the Holy father, Georgetown University and the world at large.
My best prayers.
Imam Yahya Hendi"
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Ok - so now I have to scramble to tell you what I know about the 76-year old Cardinal Bergoglio - or I should say Pope Francis I.
1) He is the first Latin American pope. As a Latin American, I couldn't be more thrilled.
2) He is the first Jesuit to be pope. This also is exciting since my father studied under the Jesuits. I feel that Pope Francis will lead in keeping with the spirit and character of his order.
3) He is the first who has chosen the name of Francis and I find that refreshing. Popes often take names of past popes they plan to emulate. At the very least, it has symbolism to that pope and I see it as an extremely good sign that Pope Francis has chosen the name used by St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals, who modeled his life around helping others while filling his days with humility and compassion.
4) Pope Francis has a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires. Who wouldn't be fascinated by this?
The more I read about him, the more I like him. In 2005, when he came to the Vatican to celebrate his cardinal appointment, he apparently asked hundreds of Argentineans to not fly to Rome but instead to donate that money to the poor.
To be honest, I did not include Pope Francis in my top 5 because he was not given the same chances of becoming pope. I did not think that a Jesuit Latin American could win this time around but I am happy to have been proven wrong.
I am including various links about Pope Francis so that people can be more informed about him. I wish Pope Francis the best luck in the world for he will be shouldering quite a burden - may he do so with kindness, courage, compassion and intelligence.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_bergoglio_jm_en.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/04/3265806/argentina-has-very-different-papal.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/on-day-2-of-papal-conclave-alliances-should-take-shape/2013/03/13/5d88b616-8bba-11e2-9838-d62f083ba93f_story.html?tid=ts_carousel
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301114.htm
http://www.startribune.com/world/197748471.html
Articles in Spanish:
http://www.lasegunda.com/Noticias/Internacional/2013/02/822277/jorge-bergoglio-arzobispo-argentino-que-disputo-con-ratzinger-sucesion-de-wojtyla (General information)
http://www.laprensa.com.ar/397285-Desde-la-Iglesia-aseguraron-que-prestaran-asistencia-a-la-mujer-que-no-fue-sometida-al-aborto.note.aspx (Pope Francis, speaking out against abortion)
http://www.laprensa.com.ar/376850-La-Iglesia-advirtio-sobre-el-aumento-desmesurado-de-la-trata-de-personas-para-la-explotacion-sexual.note.aspx (Pope Francis, supporting nuns combating sexual exploitation of women)
http://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/matrimonio-homosexual-hiere-gravemente-a-la-familia-alerta-cardenal-bergoglio/ (Pope Francis, speaking against the bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Argentina back in 2010)
1) He is the first Latin American pope. As a Latin American, I couldn't be more thrilled.
2) He is the first Jesuit to be pope. This also is exciting since my father studied under the Jesuits. I feel that Pope Francis will lead in keeping with the spirit and character of his order.
3) He is the first who has chosen the name of Francis and I find that refreshing. Popes often take names of past popes they plan to emulate. At the very least, it has symbolism to that pope and I see it as an extremely good sign that Pope Francis has chosen the name used by St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals, who modeled his life around helping others while filling his days with humility and compassion.
4) Pope Francis has a master's degree in chemistry from the University of Buenos Aires. Who wouldn't be fascinated by this?
The more I read about him, the more I like him. In 2005, when he came to the Vatican to celebrate his cardinal appointment, he apparently asked hundreds of Argentineans to not fly to Rome but instead to donate that money to the poor.
To be honest, I did not include Pope Francis in my top 5 because he was not given the same chances of becoming pope. I did not think that a Jesuit Latin American could win this time around but I am happy to have been proven wrong.
I am including various links about Pope Francis so that people can be more informed about him. I wish Pope Francis the best luck in the world for he will be shouldering quite a burden - may he do so with kindness, courage, compassion and intelligence.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_bergoglio_jm_en.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/04/3265806/argentina-has-very-different-papal.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/on-day-2-of-papal-conclave-alliances-should-take-shape/2013/03/13/5d88b616-8bba-11e2-9838-d62f083ba93f_story.html?tid=ts_carousel
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301114.htm
http://www.startribune.com/world/197748471.html
Articles in Spanish:
http://www.lasegunda.com/Noticias/Internacional/2013/02/822277/jorge-bergoglio-arzobispo-argentino-que-disputo-con-ratzinger-sucesion-de-wojtyla (General information)
http://www.laprensa.com.ar/397285-Desde-la-Iglesia-aseguraron-que-prestaran-asistencia-a-la-mujer-que-no-fue-sometida-al-aborto.note.aspx (Pope Francis, speaking out against abortion)
http://www.laprensa.com.ar/376850-La-Iglesia-advirtio-sobre-el-aumento-desmesurado-de-la-trata-de-personas-para-la-explotacion-sexual.note.aspx (Pope Francis, supporting nuns combating sexual exploitation of women)
http://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/matrimonio-homosexual-hiere-gravemente-a-la-familia-alerta-cardenal-bergoglio/ (Pope Francis, speaking against the bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Argentina back in 2010)
The New Pope
So the new pope is...drumroll...
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina!
More to come!
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina!
More to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)