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.

The World Is Messy

     Stories we hear on the news are very predominantly negative. Therefore, especially when it comes to global injustices, I think we become jaded.  We might even go so far as to tune out certain stories.  One can only hear about a car bomb in Iraq, a shooting in Kabul, or rocket fire in Gaza so many times before such news becomes repetitive. We might feel a twinge of sadness for the victims of such occurrences, but in most cases I think it's safe to say that many people don't think about such stories for more than a minute or two, at most. This fact is sad, but true. Some of the worst injustices in the world (specifically, the middle east) occur so frequently, we don't think twice about them.  I only very recently became aware of this fact because I have friends in Israel and Palestine.  So now when I hear about rocket fire and violent hostility across borders, I can put faces to these tragedies. I suppose I am lucky in a way, that I have this very real connection to make me more aware of this particular injustice. Most Americans do not.

      I think it's very difficult to apply Gospel messages to specific social injustices in the world today. I mean yes, obviously the Gospel gives us the basic rules about justness, serving others, loving ones neighbor, etc. It does not however, tell us exactly how we can respond to the tragedies we see and hear about.  How are we supposed to affect change in a war-torn or poverty-stricken nation? That thought is daunting. The Gospels offer us values to live by, but frankly they offer us absolutely no concrete advice on which to act. Granted, they were written 2,000 years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that they're  now unhelpful in the issues we face today.

    

     Andy Otto, the author of the Busted Halo article, offers a solution for the apathy that plagues American culture. He suggests that we place ourselves and our families in the place of the victims of these killings and attacks. I can certainly see how this would be an answer to the desensitization. It could certainly impassion many people and help them feel more connected to certain injustices. However, while it's a start, feeling the pain of injustice does not solve the problem.  Concrete actions solve problems. This is where Christians may turn to the Gospel. However, I think they would be better suited educating themselves and looking towards peace and advocacy organizations. it should be noted of course, that many of these organizations are likely based on Gospel values.

Justice Through Project Home

     Project Home exemplifies working towards justice for the homeless. The program offers homeless men, women and children not only what the need to survive (charity), but what they deserve as human beings. In contrast to conventional soup kitchens and homeless shelters, the kind that seem to be most prevalent, Project Home provides its residents with transitional assistant, medical care, job opportunities, and educational opportunities. Operating such an expansive program such as Project Home must take great amounts of time, dedication, and money. Its aid is much more expansive than that of a traditional homeless shelters. 

     Additionally, Project Home incorporates advocacy into its work. Their ultimate goal, therefore, is not to put as many people through their program as possible, but rather to eliminate the need for Project Home altogether.  In other words, their advocacy work strives to end homelessness. In emphasizing the advocacy aspect of Project Home, the organization reminds us that homeless shelters and transitional organizations such as Project Home are not the ultimate solution. Establishing as many soup kitchens as possible should not be the goal towards which we work. Instead, Project Home should simply be a step along the road to eliminating homelessness altogether. While many of Project Home's programs are unique and essential, I think it is this advocacy work that is most important. In the fight against homelessness, I don't think people are aware of/contribute to the advocacy aspect enough. As we discussed, the majority of individuals will dole out mashed potatoes at a shelter and feel satisfied that they've done their part. And while it's wonderful that those homeless men, women  and children have a meal and a place to sleep that night, that is not ideal. Project Home's advocacy truly tries to end homelessness. Not just put a "band-aid" on it.

What I've Learned

VHS was proabbly one of the most relevant and relatable theology courses I have taken at the Mount. Everything we learned about is extremely pertinent in today's society, but also applicable to our everyday lives.  One of the first topics we covered was the four levels of Greek love: storge, eros, philia, and agape. Though I had been aware of these before, I had never learned about them in-depth. There are so many different types of love in the world[1] it is impossible to classify them all. But these Greek descriptions do an excellent job of breaking love into four smaller areas. I could relate to them all.  Similarly, when we learned about levels of intimacy, I could easily identify how the various levels were applicable to my relationships. Additionally, we covered Church teachings on certain issues regarding sexual morality. Though I may not agree with the Church's stance in all of the matters, it was interesting to hear the reasoning behind them.

     Finally, I was really inspired by the Camino. I had never heard of this journey before, but it sounds incredible. Of course traveling to Europe and walking the Camino would be immensely powerful, but I also like that the walk was related to our own life journeys. In the same way people build relationships and make discoveries about themselves on the Camino, we must grow similarly as we advance in everyday life. Not even kidding, walking the Camino is now absolutely on my list of things to do before I die. So if I do someday walk the Camino and have some incredible revelation[2] it'll be because of this class.

---

[1] Eskimos have 32 different ways to say “I love you.”

[2] Or meet and subsequently marry an exotic European guy in one of those small towns, or die in a storm, or decide to move to Spain

Soul Mates

For me, this article shed an entirely new light on dating and relationships.  I’d honestly never looked on marriage as anything but a partnership with a soul mate.  When you find someone that you have this special, deep connection with, and you just know.   That’s when you get married.  This person should know everything about you.  He should know all of your little quirks.  He should always know what to say to cheer you up and how to make you laugh and what to do when you cry. I’ve always taken that idea for granted, I suppose. It’s something happy to look forward to.  One day, you meet a perfect, wonderful boy who absolutely adores you[1] and you fall in love and get married and live happily ever after.  I’m not even kidding…I just sort of assumed that’s how everything would eventually work out for me. That’s probably bad.

  Ingrid Michaelson describes the little intricacies of a perfect relationship, even simply the most mundane aspects of it, in her song “The Way I Am.”  “Cause I love the way you say good morning.  And you take me the way I am.”  That’s simple, but affecting.  It creates a wonderful image, something that I’d love to have if I get married.  And I think I could too, because it’s realistic.  Ingrid is good at singing about these simple, but beautiful aspects of relationships.  She does this again in her song “You and I.”  Set only to a ukulele, she sings with a partner, “You might be a bit confused, and you might be a little bit bruised but baby how we spoon like no one else.  So I will help you read those books, if you will soothe my worried looks, and we will put the lonesome on the shelf.”  So cute, right?!?

  Many of the love songs that are popular today try far too hard to be “romantic.”  This happens to the point where the actual emotional impact and relate ability of the songs are diminished significantly.  Taylor Swift is a big offender here. “Love Story” is a prime example.  “We were both young when I first saw, close my eyes and let the flashbacks start.  You’re standing there, in the balcony in summer air.  See the lights, see the party, the ball gowns.  See you make your way through the crowds to say hello.  Little did I know….”  Ugh.  Please.

But I digress.  Anyway.  Basically the article made me think, for the first time ever, that some people are happily married not to their soul mates.  In other words, you don’t have to marry a “soul mate” to have a good marriage.  I guess this must be true.  And I suppose it’s a good point that constantly searching for this perfect “soul mate” could hold one back.  But to me it still sounds like settling to me, at least the way the article described it.   And that makes me sad to think that some people do that.  But perhaps I’m being far too romantic.

Still, for a marriage to be successful, there must be a basis of some sort of love.  And whether that is an all-consuming, head over heels love, or a more practical, mature, controlled love, I suppose it doesn’t matter.  Love, in the end, is love.  In the words of Jean Val Jean, during the finale of the musical Les Miserables, “to love another person is to see the face of God.”

---

[1] Dave Matthews Band’s song “Crush” is a good example of a boy (or in this case, man I guess) loving a girl in the most adorable, perfect, soul-mateish way ever.  “I will treat you sweetly.  Adore you, I mean, you crush me . . . It’s crazy I’m thinking, just as long as you’re around, and here I’ll be dancing on the ground. Am I right side up, or right side down?”  Seriously if a boy ever though that about me I’d just die.

The Domestic Church

There are certain aspects of the church, mentioned in this blog, that are certainly present in my home.  My parents have always fostered faith, love, support and a sense community in our family.  Many of the values that are inherent parts of the church doctrine I certainly encountered for the first time at home through my mom and dad.  In this sense then, I suppose that the “domestic church” has always been part of my life.

As for the changing structure of the family, I don’t think this would have any negative effects upon the domestic church.  The composition of a family doesn’t matter.  Whether a child has two mothers, two fathers, or only one parent, as long as his or her guardians foster a sense of love in that child’s life, the domestic church can be kept alive.  Examples of this can be found in the media. Full House, Gilmore Girls, and Modern Family all feature daughters who are being raised, entirely successfully, not by the conventional mother and father.

I’m not sure how earning a college degree is associated with marriage success rate, but I suppose if that study is accurate then (hopefully) I’ll be more likely to partake in a successful marriage.  Obviously, if I have a family when I’m an adult, I would want to instill love, faith etc. into the family.  But I’m not sure I would call that the domestic church.  Those are just basic values that all children should be lucky enough to grow up with, whether their family is religious or not.

Vatican II on Marriage: Is It Relevant Today?

1. “Marriage, the constitution says, is a ‘vocation.’”

“Vocation” implies a serious commitment; something that is meant to be; a calling.  More and more in our society, marriage is becoming trivialized.  This era of Vegas chapels, 72-hour marriages, and multiple divorces makes the sacrament seem far less sacred than it is.  Our culture as a whole seems to be losing respect for marriage.  It is certainly not always viewed as a vocation.

2. “The council esteemed conjugal love as a sign to others of Christ’s own love for the church. And today it is not uncommon for church leaders to insist that the entire church benefits from the love within committed marriages and that a doubtful society needs to witness the possibility of such love.”

I have never before heard this view of conjugal love.  I think many people, even married couples, want to keep the church out of their sex lives.  So I personally think that for the Church to relate sex as “Christ’s own love for the church” and having the “entire church” benefit from the love within a committed marriage seems extremely strange.  In fact I think it would make many people uncomfortable (it certainly did for me).  Society in general, I think, views the church in a negative light when it comes to sex.  This statement to me seemed like the church was trying too hard to be accepting of sex (but only within marriage of course), but sort of fails epically.  It just comes across as weird.

3. “This marital and familial love finds its complete expression, following the example of Jesus himself, in a willingness to sacrifice oneself in everyday situations for one’s spouse and children.’”

This statement is actually very accurate.  I see this willingness to sacrifice exemplified everyday through my mother’s actions.  My mother is, as my dad puts it, the “nucleus” of our family.  I know that we would not be nearly as happy as we are were it not for her selflessness.

4. “As spouses fulfill their conjugal and family obligations, they are penetrated with the spirit of Christ.”

Ew I’m sorry but what?   This is so weird and creepy.  I keep picturing a bunch of old men sitting in this dark room together writing up this Constitution for the Church.  This makes me really uncomfortable.  It’s cultish and uber Christian and weird and ew.

Dating: What's the Point?

Is dating practice for divorce?  Anti-daters say yes, it is.  However, I believe that dating, like anything else, is what you make of it.  It's a very personal life-style.  If a person chooses to hop from relationship to relationship, never seriously committing, never fully happy with his or her partner, that is the person's own decision (albeit it might not lead to the most healthy marriage in the future).  On the other hand, there are plenty of people who "date" and have a few serious relationships before entering a completely successful marriage.  There  is no set war to measure how people go about dating or how it affects someone--it varies for everyone.

 There are certain pros and cons for both dating and not, but I personally lean strongly towards the pro-dating arguments.  First of all, I think there is truth in the point that dating helps us realize what we would want in a spouse.  It is important to know what qualities you want in a partner before committing to a marriage.  Secondly, I really like boys and would not want to not date them until I got married.  So yeah.

There is no denying that casual "hookups" are prevalent--perhaps too prevalent--in our society.  I'm not sure, though, that this has anything to do with dating.  They are two entirely different vehicles.  As is made clear by Whelan's article on Busted Halo, the majority of people expect nothing after a hookup.  Less than 10% anticipate (perhaps naively) a relationship or a even a date.  In teenage culture, these two things are certainly viewed entirely differently.  Random hook-ups are rather frequent, and generally accepted.  Serious dating and relationships are present as well.  I honestly don't think either are looked upon negatively, but for many people, one might be much more appealing than the other (or so they say).

Gender and Relationships

I both agree and disagree with Mr. Otto's reflections on marriage.  I agree completely with his statements about the need for serious discussion and reflection before marriage is considered.  To wonder when your boyfriend will propose, or if you should start dropping "subtle hints" does seem awfully immature, as Otto points out.  Presumably, this person would not be ready for marriage.  I think that two people in a healthy, mature relationship should be able to comfortably talk about their future together, without thinking twice about ruining the surprise of a proposal, or something ridiculous like that.  I also agree with Otto's insinuation that marriage is far too wedding-centric.  The focus of an engagement should be on future lives spent together, not on a single day of celebration.

However, I don't believe that the institution of marriage is harmed by traditions that surround engagement.  Nor do I, as a woman, find them to be offensive or demeaning. It is a decades old tradition that the man proposes to the woman in some sort of special/elaborate way.  Personally, I would feel awkward if the roles were reversed.   I don't care if it lessens the equality between a man and a woman, I think it is the man's job to propose.  I bet a lot of men feel that way too.  I would think that to be proposed to, to have their moment stolen, would be emasculating.  More broadly, I suppose this speaks to a man's role as the protector and provider.  While I think it's ridiculous to expect a man to provide fully and completely for the his family, without any help, I still like the idea of men being the protectors.  I think it's sweet.

I guess my own parents' engagement was ideal.  They'd been dating for seven years, and of course marriage had come up.  They discussed it at length before they got engaged.  But when my dad did finally propose, he did it at a beautiful location overlooking the Pacific Ocean.  He gave my mom a ruby necklace, not a ring.  Once my mom had me, she stopped working.  So now my father is the sole financial provider for the family.  Therefore, I suppose, my parents fit in to stereotypical gender roles.

Article referenced: http://bustedhalo.com/features/when-will-he-propose

Reflection on "Human Sexuality: 'Wonderful Gift' and 'Awesome Responsibility'" (by Richard Sparks, C.S.P.)

     It was interesting to me that during the 1990's U.S. Catholic Bishops went out of their way to reshape the negative aura that the church seemingly cast around sex. Also, I was surprised that they included homosexuals in a paragraph about "wisely handling ones purity." However, the age old familiar words of "chastity and virtue are wonderful gifts" etc. etc. are abundantly present. Not to say that I disagree, of course, it's just I'm not sure I like the style in which the messages are expressed. It's almost as if some of the paragraphs were written by an extremely conservative person who is trying to spin his or her argument so that is sounds more appealing to people with more centralist views.

      I generally liked the way the passage talks about the "unitive dimension" of sex, and of course I was not surprised at all by what I found in the "procreative dimension" section. That is a theme I recognized because of it's current prominence in the media and it's central importance to church beliefs, especially now in our society.

     This anti-contraception theme is continued in the paragraphs about marriage. I was surprised, although I suppose I shouldn't have been, by the extreme rigidity of the Church's stance. "Regarding other birth control methods, the Catholic Church teaches that 'a couple may never, by direct means (i.e., contraceptives), suppress the procreative possibility of sexual intercourse'." While I knew that was the case, I guess I'd never focused on it enough to actually see the teaching spelled out so clearly in writing. Honestly, it seems as if the church is being somewhat unreasonable. I think their expectations of people are set much too high, in that they are so adamantly opposed to both contraception and abortion. I understand that the two beliefs go hand in hand, and to condone one and not the other would be contradictory.  But what about being realistic?  This is 2012.  According to Church teachings, if you have sex, you have to be ready and willing to become pregnant.  Otherwise, abstinence is your only preventative option.  Clearly for a great many people, both Catholic and not, alternative forms of birth control are much more appealing and make much more sense.  Additionally, as the article goes on to discuss in the section about "single life" and "homosexual orientation", only a married man and a woman should engage in sexual intercourse. That excludes a large number of people.  Again, this is entirely unrealistic.  The fact that these two central beliefs of Catholicism are so widely ignored undermines the Church's authority.

     The theme of confining sex to marriage utterly permeates the article.  However, one theme, I thought, was not.  Love.  Can't sex purely be an act of love, whether that love is defined by marriage or not?  It is possible for deep, meaningful, romantic connections to exist outside marriage.  Shouldn't that be what is important?  The Church's view is clear, and certainly valid.  They say the act of sex is a privilege of committing oneself to marriage, and it is an act that should always be done with openness to procreation.  But the Church is fighting a losing battle, perhaps even one that is already lost. However, I don't anticipate its surrender anytime soon.

Article referenced: http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0892.asp

Mission Statement

Passionate is a word that people often use to describe me. When I'm passionate about something I devote my full and entire self to it. At this point in my life it is easy for me to pick out the three things I am immensely passionate about; three things which motivate, inspire, and excite me to no end: theatre, interfaith work, and my friends and family.

For me, there is a clear connection between these three passions. At the heart of each one lies love; love that I have for the stage, for the different cultures I learn about, and for the many wonderful people that I'm blessed to know. My mission is to live out my passions and love to the fullest. I truly believe that this love is at the root of everything one does. Always. This sentiment is expressed beautifully in one of my favorite prayers, a prayer that is attributed to Fr. Pedro Arrupe, SJ, and is appropriately entitled "Fall in Love."

Nothing is more practical than finding God, that is,
than falling in love in a quite absolute final way.
What you are in love with,
what seizes your imagination,
will affect everything.
It will decide what will get you out of bed in the morning,
what you do with your evenings,
how you spend your weekend,
what you read, who you know,
what breaks your heart,
and what amazes you with joy and gratitude.
Fall in love,
stay in love,
and it will decide everything.

Who Am I?

I don't think it's unusual for people to say that their families have a big influence on who they are.  That is certainly true for me.  It makes sense.  It's bound to happen when you've spent the majority of your childhood with them.  My parents instilled many of my values and beliefs within me.  But they've also given me the freedom to develop my own worldview, even if it differs from their own.  I sometimes wonder if I would be as liberal or as open minded as I am were it not for them.  Then I look at my more conservative friends and think the same thing.  Perhaps if my parents were conservative or theirs were liberal our positions would be completely reversed.  And that right vs. left mindset is something that I'll carry with me for the rest of my life.   That's just an example of the huge effect parents can have.  I've been thinking about that a lot lately, in light of the upcoming election.

Theatre is also a huge part of my life.  It's something I really love to do, especially with the community I've found in Cape and Sword (the drama society at the Prep).  During the school year Cape and Sword takes up the majority of my time.  The people in Cape and Sword are my second family.  The Prep theatre is my home away from home.  It has taught me about dedication, community, resiliency, respect, loyalty, and love.  Frankly, I can't even begin to imagine my high school career, or my life, for that matter, without the Cape and Sword.

Finally, my interfaith work and my experiences with other religions and cultures have made a huge impact on my life.  Most directly, they've affected what I want to do professionally.  As a senior, I am now applying to colleges (ahhhhhh).  Largely due to of Face to Face and incredible people I met there, I'm applying to schools as a comparative theology major (or religious studies, depending on the school), with a focus on the middle east. I can't express how important I believe interfaith collaboration and understanding is as a tool for social change, both in our own communities, and around the world.  Additionally, Face to Face has really changed and expanded my view of the world, something for which I will be eternally grateful.