More Violence in American Society (Just War)

     Peacefully resolving international conflicts is ideal, but unrealistic. No matter how many efforts are made by powerful countries or powerful organizations (look at the UN) there will always be some nations that are selfishly trying to gain what's best for their state, by whatever means possible. Even that statement, saying that there will always be some of those countries, is optimistic. In reality, every country in the world has its own best interests in mind. When a country sees those interests threatened, they react, often violently. To expect all international conflicts to be solved without violent beings is, sadly, outlandishly naive. I think that, at least in our life time, a world without WMD's  and volatile global conflict can not become a reality. Even when WMD's aren't actually being used, the threat of WMD's in certain countries (look at Iran) causes upheaval and conflict. It's a never ending circle.
     I hate to say "just give up on world peace," but quite honestly, at this point I think the government's focus should be placed on peace at home. We should focus on eliminating our own country's culture of death. Guns of course play a huge role in this culture, as has been so discussed as of late. Unfortunately, our founding fathers were not psychic and therefore had no way of knowing the debates they would spur with the writing of the Second Amendment. Ending the pervading violence in America starts with strict limitations on gun use. Unfortunately, the NRA is actually the worst organization that every existed, and I am fairly certain it is comprised of a bunch of insane people. So that's not good. Because the NRA has a lot of pull in Congress. EVEN THOUGH THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION IS NUTS. I heard an interview on NPR the other day where the president of the NRA kept talking about how we have to get guns out of the hands of madman and put ARMED POLICE OFFICERS IN SCHOOLS. IS HE EVEN SERIOUS. LIKE EXCUSE ME MR. NRA PRESIDENT BUT YOU'RE CRAZY. There are two problems here. The first is that the NRA wants to fight fire with fire, so to speak, in that to solve the gun issue, the want MORE GUNS (with the police officers in schools). The second problem is that the NRA is addressing the issue of guns specifically in regards to the Newtown shooting. Yes, that was a horrific tragedy, but what the NRA seems to neglect to acknowledge is that dozens of people are shot in cities every single day. Why is no one raising this issue? Why are we focusing on an errant school shooting when guns are so ubiquitous in the every day lives of people in many parts of the country? I don't understand it.
     Then of course there's the less daunting but obvious answer that pop culture encourages violence: video games, music, movies, TV shows.... That, in theory, could be easily rectified. But it won't be. Freedom of Expression and all that. Damn that Bill of Rights. Did you know that there are no guns in England? NO GUNS. Like 15 people are murdered per year. England doesn't have a Bill of Rights...
     Anyway, the most immediate and sensible solution I can see is addressing the issue of violence directly in our own communities...perhaps through programs such as Homeboy Industries or Project Home or anything else that gets people off the streets.

Violence in American Society

I think the tragedy in Newtown has been particularly impactful for people because of all of the young lives lost. However, standing alone, I doubt this event, though horrific, would have spurred the social and political conversations about guns and violence that are now so prevalent. Newtown, it seems, was the final straw. It was a violent awakening for many Americans who seem to finally be realizing—or admitting—just how messed up society is.  

The most prominent response to the Newtown violence (besides prayers and support, of course) has been the focus on gun control in our country. Now, finally, it seems that this issue is coming to the forefront of politics. However, simply putting restrictions on the buying and selling of firearms surely won’t be enough. We have to look deeper. We have to not just focus on how we can stop this violence, we have to ask why this violence exists. What are we doing wrong that hundreds of people are killed per year in every major city in the United States? Surely easy access to guns doesn’t help, but there must be deep-seeded emotional issues at the heart of this violence. So perhaps we should examine the way we are raising our children. We should look at the television shows they watch, the music the listen to, the games they play, and the communities in which they are raised. If a child is growing up in a community where it is typical to have a close relative die a violent death or it is accepted as fact that everyone will at some point end up in prison, we should do something about that. We need to address that problem, instead of accepting it as commonplace in that particular environment. The issue of inner-city violence is often overshadowed, I think, by mass shootings such as the one in Newtown. However, as far as mass shootings go, it seems that our country should be providing better mental care for people who are so troubled.

As students who are committed to social justice, we are called to stand up against the “culture of death” in American society.  We are called to speak out for the victims of violence who die everyday but who don’t receive the same media coverage as do victims of mass tragedies. Perhaps now Americans are finally realizing the expanse of this problem. And perhaps we will finally begin to fix our country.

Response to Factory Fire

     American society's response (or lack thereof) to the fire at the factory in Bangladesh recalls the idea of desensitization that we discussed earlier in the course. The story about the factory was "hot" for a couple of days, and then, like all other news stories, died down. As with many other global events, many Americans seem to accept such tragedies as part of everyday life in those countries. Therefore, I don't think the fire had much of an impact on the majority of Americans. I certainly doubt that it had any affect on where they shop. I think the people most affected were probably those  who were already concerned about labor issues overseas. Save for these few people who make a conscious effort (as difficult as this is) to shop fair trade, USA products etc, I'd assert that the majority of Americans are not "responsible consumers."

    As for the American companies whose products were found at the site of the factory file, I think it's extremely disheartening that even these companies who claimed to believe they were no longer doing business with this particular factory were still involved. How can we, the government, or anyone really hope to address this injustice if even when companies think they're operating fairly, some middleman sees that they are not. These companies who are aware of the issue, and attempting to address is (unlike Nike) should be commended. However, perhaps consumers should make clear to them that, obviously, they are not doing enough.

Sainthood and Dorothy Day

     Quite honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about the concept of sainthood at all. I think the fact that it elevates humans to almost God-like levels is problematic. And inevitable, with such a stringent process to ordain "saints" exemplary and devout people will be passed over. I think the Church would be better suited by paying special honor to individuals who deserve it. It is nice, after all, for us to have concrete, relatable examples of people whose lives we should emulate. But having such a complex process to achieve a title as holy as "saint" is, in my opinion, too much.
   
      It is somewhat surprising, though refreshing, that a conservative Cardinal would champion the campaign to canonize Dorothy Day. However, I have a lot of respect for the fact that Cardinal Dolan can look past the negative in her life and focus on all of the good she did. It makes sense that he sees her work as particularly relevant in the political and social climate of today. For many, Dorothy Day might bridge the gap that the article references between the social justice leftists and the pro-life conservatives.

     Being a Catholic "saint" means simply living out Christ's mission in the best way you know how. It doesn't mean you has to move to India and build orphanages or join a cloistered monastery (although some people are certainly called to do so) to live a holy life. Dorothy Day lived this idea fully, doing everything she could to help those around her and spread the message of Catholic Social Teachings throughout her community.

Obama and Romney on Circles of Protection

Obama and Romney took very different approaches to responding to Circles of Protection and the poverty issue in America.

Governor Romney addressed the issue from a very political perspective. At the start of the clip, he quoted some rather jarring statistics about the number of poor and jobless in our country today. He referenced the economy, saying that under his leadership and his 5-point economic plan, the economy would be revitalized. A healthy economy, he says, means more jobs, and more opportunities for more people. Governor Romney said that the government is a safety-net for the poor. At the end of the video, he promised to work with faith-based organizations to improve the standards of living for those below the poverty line in this country.

President Obama took a very different approach. He had to, of course. Unlike Governor Romney, President Obama couldn't very well quote statistics that would reflect badly upon his administration. That would be bad politics. So instead he took much more of a moral standpoint, stating that "poverty is a moral issue." He briefly touched on economics by stating that the lower and middle classes could not be taxed heavily so that the upper class could receive tax cuts. This he said, was not only bad economics, but morally wrong. Predominantly however, Mr. Obama focused on the idea of "one American family," and idea that the people, more so than the government, are the ones who must work together to help each other. Oftentimes the most effective solutions to poverty are those born out of basic human goodness--the kindness of neighbors and the devotion of parents were two personal examples he used.

 Romney's statement was, in my opinion, a bit too political. While he begins the video by thanking all of the Americans who "have already dedicated themselves to improving the lives of the less fortunate" and referencing the "good heart of America," this seemed like an in-genuine, ingratiating plug for votes, instead of an inspiring compliment to the American people. The rest of the video was extremely political and government focused, rather than moral and focused on the people. Obama had his faults as well.  Though he spoke passionately about everyone working together to help their fellow Americans in need, many of his statements were a bit too vague to be impactful. Especially in contrast with Romney's very politically-oriented video, President Obama was perhaps a bit too obviously asserting that the government was not fully responsible for fixing poverty (not a surprising move, since his administration is not currently doing a great job with this).

Beyond the Swoosh

I think boycotts and petitions are an excellent way to send a message to a particular company. Of course, this message won't be heard, or even noticed, if only delivered by a few hundred voices. To truly make an impact on company's such as Nike and Urban Outfitters, the American people will have to take a stand. Christian values teach us that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and inhuman companies are disregarding this completely. Even for those who don't subscribe to Christian beliefs, the moral dilemma should in fact not be a dilemma at all. It's not difficult to NOT buy Nike shoes or NOT shop at Urban, or NOT by chocolate that was produced by slave labor. Living in a consumerist culture, we have many many options other than those that do not align themselves with basic morality.

Church and Scripture

The beginning pages of the textbook focuses on stories and ideas that I have learned about since practically the first grade. However, I can't say that I've experienced the Church's "salvation" much in a context that is relevant to the injustices of the world today. Obviously, though, that does not mean that the Church is not doing anything about homelessness, or other social justice issues. The fact is that many Catholics work tirelessly as advocates for the voiceless. For some reason though, these people and their work never seem to be at the forefront of the Church. Instead, the public hears about child sex abuse scandals and harsh stances on issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Those within the Church don't seem to be aware of the social justice work either. I think it's interesting that in 12 years of Catholic education this is the first time I've formally learned about Catholic social justice. However, the Paschal mystery, the Fall, Original Sin, and other such elements of Catholiscism, I have heard about over and over and over again. I wonder why the church chooses to emphasize such theological points when the extensive advocacy work of Catholics would be more appealing to the majority of people.