sepsisdepsis-blog

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

The 2016 polls from Pew Research Center, shows that there is a strong correlation between religious level and support for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  It’s not much of a surprise considering Hillary’s aggressive and some would even say, extreme views on abortion, her pro stance on gay/transgender rights, and a lot of Christians believed she was against religious freedom.  One of the only religious communities that predominately voted for Hillary, and it was the highest difference amongst all affiliations, were people of the Jewish faith.  Of the Jewish faith, the one exception were the Orthodox Jews.  Approximately 50% of Orthodox voters favored Trump while 21% supported Clinton.  Historically the Jewish community has always voted for the Democratic nominee.  While most Jews find Trump to be anti-Semitic, the Orthodox community have aligned themselves more with the Republican point of view.  Within the Orthodox community, there is the Ultra Orthodox (Haredi Judaism) and within this group their is the sub-group Hasidic Judaism. 

During Trump’s campaign, the Hasidic Jews became supporters of Donald Trump.  Many people within the Hasidic community enjoyed Trump’s honesty and how he speaks with whatever is on his mind.  This usually secluded community, got excited with politics for the first time.  While most mainstream American Jews represent one of the most liberal groups, the ultra-Orthodox Jews tend to lean more towards conservative ideals.  According to Pew, the only consistently conservative group, politically and ideologically, other than the Orthodox Jews, are white evangelical Christians.  Even though Trump’s life choices, and crude behavior, doesn’t exactly align with conservative values, Trump is endeared because of his “straightupness.”  The other reasons are his public awareness in New York, and his daughter Ivanka being a converted Orthodox Jew who is married to a well known Orthodox real estate businessman.   

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

A QUIZ NO ONE CAN PASS 

Brie Loskota is a Religious Literacy and Competency trainer, she teaches courses to Government employees in emergency management, public safety and public health. In her article for USC, she explains that she recently included a test for the trainees to take. This test is interesting, in my opinion, because it opens our eyes to the reality of things.

The test includes a couple of basic questions about Religion. Some are about Christianity, which is the religion most of the people who attend her courses associate with. A couple of the questions are about Islam. Almost no one ever knows the answer to them. At the end of the test, she likes to ask the trainees what they thought about the test. Almost everyone says: “it was harder than I thought”. In fact, most of them have no knowledge whatsoever on Islam, have never talked to a Muslim person before or attended a Mosque. What is scary is that those are the same people who have a lot of negative things to say about Muslims and its harshest critics.

She also points out another very interesting fact. The new airport policies that have been introduced with the new Government Administration include a very thorough religious screening and blatantly target Muslims. Yet the very people who claim to be Christian couldn’t answer basic questions, not only about Islam, but about Christianity! She likens this situation to Immigration. In order for an immigrant to become a naturalized citizen in the USA, he/she has to take a test where he/she must prove to possess knowledge about the American Constitution and Government. Ms. Loskota points out that this isn’t the case for those who have been born here simply because their parents were here in that particular moment in history. Therefore, in this country, if you are not a natural born citizen and a Christian, you have something to prove. Otherwise, you are free to be ignorant and judge other people��s beliefs and intentions, with no basis whatsoever.

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

In class we focused on African American religion and politics, and watched a video on the Civil Rights Movement.  I wanted to look deeper into Dr. King’s religious and political beliefs, because I was curious if his ideals had changed from being well educated.  Dr King, has always been intelligent.  He knew how to read before 5 years old, he skipped his first and last year of highschool and started college at only 15 years old.  He graduated from Morehouse College in 1948 with a Bachelors in sociology.  He received a Bachelor of Divinity in 1951 from Crozer.  In 1955 he received his PhD in theology from Boston University.  He was also a pastor at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.

Dr. King believed in equality and his beliefs in equality stemmed from his Christian beliefs in brotherhood, love and the idea that we are all equal in the eyes of God.  He did though, have some interesting beliefs when it came to Christianity.  Beliefs that sound just like America’s Deist founding fathers.  King did not believe that Christ was born from a virgin, and that he was not born divine, but became divine during his lifetime.  He also didn’t believe that Jesus was or ever will be resurrected, rather he believed this was a metaphor for accepting Jesus into our hearts.  What’s interesting is that Deism gained rise during the Age of Enlightenment, an intellectual movement in which Christians began to doubt the supernatural events throughout the Bible and base their religious understanding more on science, reason and the natural world.  Deists denied the idea of miracles, resurrection, virgin birth, the Holy Trinity, to name a few.  King aligned himself with these same ideals, believing that these views are contrary to science and are ancient ideals that are in need of updating.   Martin Luther King Jr., was a man who grew up in the church, his father was a pastor and Christian ideals were at his very core.  Through education, his ideals and religious perspectives changed and adapted to those of a Deist.  Deist, who also started as Christians and through education their religious perspectives changed.  Can it be said that Dr. King really is a Christian?  Well if America cannot be Christian if it’s based on our founding fathers, than nor can Dr. King.

This quote at the top says it all.  While many scientist fight Christians and Christians fight scientist about ideas such as: creationism vs evolutionism, age of the Earth, existence of dinosaurs, etc.  King believed that they both should exist harmoniously.  He really believed that everything should live harmoniously.

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

The complicated and delicate issue of Abortion, is one that most people have an opinion on, yet very few actually dare talk about. In the political realm, the general consensus is that the Right is against it, while the Left is for it. Some people like to refer to the two different views as being either Pro-Life (against abortion) or Pro-Choice (for abortion). As much as this generalization might be true and realistic, however, most people don’t know exactly why the two political wings differ so much in their views on what has to be one of the few issues that encompasses pretty much every sphere of life: political, religious, social, economical and so on.

As I mentioned before, rumor has it the GOP, or Right wing, is against abortion. Yet it isn’t only a moral stand the GOP is taking. Moral stand being one that coincides with religious beliefs from Mormons, white evangelical Protestants, white Catholics, etc.  In other words, they don’t simply believe abortion is wrong.  To be precise, the GOP sees abortion as more than just an individual choice. They see it as a personal/societal choice which has to do with the possibility of violating the Constitution and has an economical aftermath. In other words, if a woman chooses to have an Abortion, it is not only her choice simply because it does not only affect her. It involves the Government and all the people too, and I will explain why. The reason that a woman’s choice to have an abortion involves the Government is because she would be violating the 14th Amendment, therefore the Government would be too, by allowing her. In Section 1, the 14th Amendment states that the State “shall not deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”. For this reason, by killing an innocent baby who can’t speak for him/herself, therefore cannot be given due process, the State would clearly be infringing the American Constitution. The other reason why the GOP is against abortion is economical: they are against financially supporting organizations which promote or perform abortions.

The Left wing also bases its views on what they believe to be a Constitutional right. The right to choose should be only the individual woman’s and not a collective issue. The Democrats believe the State should financially support that right as well as other programs intended to diminish the need for abortions, while supporting family planning and sexual education. They also believe in Stem Cell Research, which consists in harvesting stem cells in unborn fetuses to further medical progress. The Left wing does not make Abortion a matter of right or wrong, but rather of the woman’s choice on the grounds that it is her body and only her body which is involved. Of course some, including myself, may ask “what about the baby’s body?” I guess the most important question is: when does a fetus start having Constitutional rights? Is it when it has a heart beat in the very beginning of the pregnancy? Is it only when it is born, like Hillary Clinton has repeatedly suggested? I am going to leave you all with some food for thought. As we have seen before, when a pregnant woman is killed, the perpetrator will be charged with double homicide. This means that the unborn baby is being considered as a “real” human being with rights, amongst which the right to life which was just taken from him/her without due process. So it would seem to me that our current Government does see the baby as having Constitutional rights. Then I wonder, how come if a  woman has an abortion, the baby’s life is not regarded as having any rights, but it is only a matter of the woman’s choice? Are we saying that the mother has more rights than the perpetrator? Because that would be violating the Declaration of Independence, which states in the second paragraph that “all men are created equal”, not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 7 that:"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

A story in the New York times, spoke of a woman named Asuman Antepli, a Muslim woman who works at a hospital in North Carolina.  She explained how after Osama bin Laden, people’s attitude towards her changed for the worse.  It got much worse though, when Donald Trump began his climb through the political arena.  Some patients wouldn’t even let her treat them, and she worked in the emergency room.  It wasn’t until Khizr Khan’s speech during the Democratic convention about his son’s death fighting for this country, did some people within this country start accepting Muslims as Americans again.  Khizr Khan is a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan who made a very powerful speech refuting Trump’s policies on immigration.  One of the most powerful moments is when he pulled out his Constitution and told Trump that he can borrow his and claimed to Trump, “You have sacrificed nothing and no one!”  Is it fair though, that for Muslims to now be seen as American, they must suffer the loss of a son or daughter in war?  Not just any war either, a war in Iraq, a country where 65 percent of the population is Muslim.  So for a Muslim to be proclaimed American, they must join the army, fight against people of their own faith, and die or be a family member of someone who died?  But yet every white person born in America, can just be a cashier at McDonalds and their “Americaness,” will never be questioned.  Makes sense.  

The issue though, is not so much the barring of Muslim migrants from states that house Terrorists during a time when Americans are scared.  It’s Trump’s proposal to shut down mosques, issuing special ID cards to Muslims and create a Muslim database to track their movements.  Not Muslims in the Middle East, Muslims in America.  How is this modern day America, aren’t we better than this?  This is no better than not allowing basic civil freedoms because of the color of your skin.  Kids are being bullied, colleagues are being ignored, a student was thrown off of a plane in California of all places, because he was speaking Arabic and people got alarmed.  There are more than 1.6 billion Muslims.  If you take every single terrorist attack that has happened by extremist, and every person in ISIS, every member of Al Quaeda, Boko Haram, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the Haqqani Network, etc., the percent is so small, they practically don’t exist.  So small that you have a better chance of being struck by lightening in your lifetime, than a Muslim has a chance of committing a terrorist attack during that same timespan.  The media is poisoning our minds, and everyone is afraid to speak up for Muslims because they don’t want to be labeled as a terrorist.  This is not just speaking up for Muslims though, this is speaking up for basic American freedoms that everyone in the past has fought for.  The picture above has been turned into a poster that reads, “We the People, Are Greater than Fear.”

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”   I remember reciting these words in elementary school, not at all knowing their meaning or the words behind them.  Sometimes I would say it, sometimes I would mumble it, and other times I would just stare silently into the distance until it was over.  Never did I realize that those words that I recited over and over again were so controversial.  It didn’t brainwash me into joining the military, nor did it make me feel the need to rush to Church.  But yet, here we are today, where everything and nothing is a problem.  Where there is nothing, a huge problem will arise, but yet the problem actually exist in everything, but it’s treated as nothing.  The pledge of allegiance has a long history and many believe that the words “Under God,” should be removed. 

Brief History: 1924 - The Pledge Allegiance was written, without “Under God.” 1943 - Supreme Court rules that one can’t be forced to recite the pledge, a win for the JWs.

1954 - “Under God” is added to the pledge.

1998 - This is the beginning of Dr. Michael Newdow, trying to get rid of the “under God” portion of the pledge of allegiance.  He has tried many times since 1998 and has failed everytime.

2014 - The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts rules that the Pledge of Allegiance does not discriminate against atheists.

This brings us to the end.  I have never met anyone in my entire life who has had an issue with the pledge of allegiance.  I have grown up with many different races and with kids who have all different kind of theological beliefs.  My best friends are Atheist, and my parents are both Agnostic.  I know Christians who will not say the Pledge of Allegiance because they don’t believe that it fits into their religious beliefs.  So why are we fighting over this?  This sounds more like parents trying to impose their own beliefs, rather than a reflection of their children’s ideals, in which they are supposedly trying to defend.  What is the issue with the pledge?  If you don’t agree with it, then don’t say it, it really is that easy.  This is not a religious chant, that is trying to force Christianity down your throat, this is ceremonial deism.  It’s a religious expression that is based on historical usage and practice.  I would be very surprised if there was even one kid who has been deeply affected by the words of the pledge of allegiance and not their parent’s bantering on about how bad it is.  Show me one kid who belts out the pledge of allegiance with conviction and honor and the words deeply touch his/her very soul.  A kid will find more importance in the sandwich he/she is eating for lunch than the words we are fighting over to ban.

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

These magnets were sold at stores in an Amish community in Berlin, Ohio.  Since the Amish don’t have Televisions and radios, Trump tried to captivate off of their ignorance by winning them over.  A lot of people think that the Amish people can’t vote.  The Amish don’t pay some taxes, they don’t receive Social Security or disability, and don’t participate in the military.  Even though they have secluded themselves from the rest of America, they are able to vote, they just choose not to.  The Amish, being Pacifist, can’t side with the Republican party’s lack of gun control laws, but also can’t stand for the Democratic liberal policies of gay marriage, transgender rights and abortion.  The other reasons they don’t vote, are based on their religious ideals.  They believe that there are two kingdoms, the material kingdom and the spiritual kingdom.  While they do believe in respecting the authorities, that is preached in the Bible, they also believe that the laws of the spiritual kingdom hold true above all.

President George W. Bush produced the largest Amish voting turnout, about 13% of registered voters.  Of the whole population, only about half of the Amish  population is registered to vote.  Many of the Amish voted for Trump, the exact numbers are unclear, but the  sentiment is that most chose “The lesser of two evils.”  The Amish PAC that was formed by the Trump administration, was a very smart move on their part.  Tap into a community with strong moral sense, who are disconnected to media and only will hear what you choose to provide.

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

In class we spoke about Jehovah Witness and watched a video in which it was stated that JW’s don’t believe in blood transfusion.  Wanting to learn more about the reasoning I read Brian Wright’s article on Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Transfusions.  This article states that JWs believe that the Bible forbids them from accepting blood transfusions.  If they do accept this procedure, he/she will be excommunicated from the community and not receive a place in eternal life.  

Timeline:

1945: JW blood doctrine became official, JWs couldn’t enter into God’s Kingdom if they receive a blood transfusion.

1958: Doctrine was revised to allow recieiving certain antibodies (such as tetanus).

1961: Those that received a blood transfusions will not only be disallowed into the Eternal Kingdom, but also removed from the fellowship in their community. 

Few years later they allowed children to be vaccinated so they can attend public schools.

1975:  JWs are banned from receiving any clotting factors .  This went back and forth for three years, and some allowances are still in effect today.

The Governing Body:

So who is making these rules?  The Governing Body is composed of eight men and JWs must follow what these men interpret and publish regarding faith and practice.  They have determined that anyone who tries to convince a JW to accept blood is doing the work of Satan.  For this reason those that have died because of refusing treatment, are considered to be revered martyrs.  

Theology:

Governing body focuses on three texts primarily: Genesis 9, Leviticus 17 and Acts 15.  Each of these refer to not eating meat that still has blood in it.  Through this they draw the distinction that transfusing blood is the same as eating it.  The Bible anticipated this modern topic and addresses the principle, and the principle to animal blood is the same to human blood, so it’s therefor sacred.  Not all JW members agree with this interpretation, but they speak against the policy anonymously and they are a small group.

Thoughts: I don’t agree with this policy, nor do I agree with their translation of their scripture.  I’m not sure I understand the connection between animal blood and eating animal blood, to the transfusion of human blood, to me it seems a little far fetched.  Personally I am no theologian or scholar, but have never seen a passage referring to blood transfusions.The author notes an interesting note, “How can the Governing Body place so much emphasis on the sacredness of blood and its lifeforece, while denying the very thing it symbolizes?”  One has to ask though, what does the Governing Body or the religion itself get out of denying blood transfusions?

[sepsisdepsis-blog]

Time magazine posted a piece by Elizabeth Dias, she wrote about Donald Trump's success in the Evangelical world.  Mark Burns, a Televangelist and born again Christian, vehemently spoke on Trump's behalf of an upcoming "Age of Green."  Burns has made his money through a Christian network, speaks of the importance of money.  Trump, who is all about money, can align with this sentiment, and has teamed up with those that share his same values.  He has used people such as Burns as a gateway to get into the Evangelist world, and even has been praised by Jerry Falwell Jr.  More than half of white evangelicals believe that Trump will make a great President. This is creating a divide in the Christian world, as some are now focusing on prosperity instead of moral obligation and conservative policies.

While Trump might not have the most impressive past (three marriages, support for abortion, misogynistic comments), in the eyes of those that focus on prosperity, he is BLESSED. Trump's identity in the Evangelical world, has been growing for quite a while now.  There was a very popular video of Trump being prayed on by famous Televangelists at the same time.  Clinging on to the Televangelist that have made millions from their success and share a common goal with Trump, has led to Trump's success for the Evangelical vote.  Every Christian ought to be healthy and wealthy, who wouldn't want to get on that train?  But everything comes with a price, and what moral principles do we put aside for personal gain and success?  

Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all evil." I guess this only exists if one can manipulate the words of the Bible to fit one’s own objective.  As Burns says "Jesus said, above all things, I pray that you prosper, I pray that you have life more abundantly." This easily misinterprets the intentions of the verse, focusing on a sentence without looking at the full paragraph. If one were to look closer, one would realize the true intention is about the prosperity of the soul and material worth has never been a top priority of the Bible.  A lot of times the right intentions of religious prosperity and spread of morality starts right, and ends horribly.  Figures from the past get sidetracked, lose their way and begin following a path of greed and wealth.  An example is America's pride and joy: Columbus.  Columbus might have begun his journey to spread Christianity, but his greed led to enslavement, and the beginning of the Columbian Exchange...we all know how that worked out for the original Americans.  The Native American's population shrank to nearly half right after making contact with the Europeans.  This was a man, as many others, who started with the right intentions and ended up falling, because of his unquenchable love for money and wealth.  But what if he never even started with a moral Christian intention?  What if he started off believing that Christians shall prosper, it's their God given right, and their success is above all?  Do you see where I'm going with this?