Cardinal George Pell has been charged with multiple sexual assault allegations by Australian authorities. Pell is the highest ranking member of the Catholic Church to be implicated in the child abuse scandal that has tarnished the church’s reputation throughout the past few decades.

Pell is accused of “historical sexual assault offenses.” These include at least two men who have come forward and described Pell inappropriately touching them at a swimming pool in the 1970s. Pell denied these allegations after an interview aired on Australian television in 2016 and he has denounced this “relentless character assassination,” according to the Washington Post.

Pope Francis did not release a statement on the issue, but the Vatican said that it feels “great regret” over the situation and that the Pope has appreciated what Pell did during his three years in Rome, according to the Washington Post.

Pell is set to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on July 18. The magistrate will decide next week whether not to release the details of the investigation, according to BBC.

While he has repeatedly said he will fully cooperate with the investigation, Pell has also strongly denied the accusations. The Pope has granted him a leave of absence to fight the charges, according to BBC. Pell said that he would make the trip back to Australia if his doctor permits it. Last year doctors would not permit him to fly back to Australia last year so he answered questions from detectives via videochat.

“I’m looking forward finally to having my day in court,” Pell said. “I am innocent of these charges, they are false. The whole idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to me.”

Pell, an adviser to the Pope and Prefect of the Secretariat of the Economy, is a native of Ballarat, Australia, and was the Archbishop of Melbourne and then Sydney before becoming a cardinal in 2004. Named the head of the Vatican’s finances in 2014, Pell is considered the third most powerful person in the church.

In the past decade Pell has played a prominent role on Vatican commissions created to combat sexual assault within the Roman Catholic community. In 2013 he was named one of eight cardinals charged with investigating ways to reform the church, according to CNN. However, he has also been criticized for his lack of impact on the investigations and supposed connections with known child-abusing priests.

Because of his powerful position within the Vatican and the Australian Catholic community, it is possible that these allegations will be the biggest obstacle the church faces when it comes to combatting child abuse. Peter Saunders, a British abuse survivor who served on a papal commission investigating the abuse, told the Washington Post:

[These charges] will probably rock the Vatican like nothing else has ever done…The fact that one of the pope’s right-hand men, the secretary for the economy, has in a sense been arrested and will be charged with such serious offenses, that surely has got to have some kind of effect on the Vatican and the hierarchy.

So, the coming months will be telling for how the Pope and the Catholic Church respond to the accusations against Pell and the recurring issues with abuse within the church. While they’ve dealt with past scandals within the Vatican and in other branches, such a high profile conviction brings with it new challenges in addition to worldwide attention. Pope Francis has made it one of his goals to cleanse the church of child abuse and this will likely set him back.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cardinal George Pell Charged with Sexual Assault appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month Polish nationals fought for their reproductive rights after the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) tried to pass a bill designed to criminalize abortions. The proposed statute, which was originally brought forth by an anti-abortion citizens’ initiative and encouraged by the Catholic church, aimed to completely outlaw abortions unless the mother’s life was threatened. Prison sentences for illegal procedures would have also increased from two to five years, in addition to penalizing surgeons who perform unlawful operations.

In the wake of such a proposition, a series of protests dubbed “Black Monday” disrupted the ordinance from gaining further momentum in the predominately Catholic country. Three days after these events unfolded, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish parliament) overturned the bill in a 352-58 vote–proving the power of an active citizenry. Considering how successful these protests were in persuading the government to discard the bill, Poland nonetheless has an array of political and cultural challenges to overcome before women achieve total self-autonomy. The following article delves into some of these obstacles.

The Magnitude of “Black Monday”

On a conceptual level, these historic actions were inspired by an Icelandic strike in 1975, where 90 percent of the country’s female population abandoned their jobs and domestic duties to denounce rampant workplace discrimination. Propelled by this example, protests were held throughout Poland and other surrounding countries on Monday October 3, 2016. Solidarity events took place in Berlin, Dusseldorf, London, and Paris, although the largest of these assemblies occurred in the Polish capital of Warsaw where approximately 30,000 individuals (clad in black clothing) gathered to rebuke the religious-based injunction. Such an outpouring of support surprised many, considering people only had a day’s notice to prepare for the event. Some even boycotted school and work to show their commitment to the cause.

“The protest was bigger than anyone expected. People were astonished,” said one activist, Agnieszka Graff. “Warsaw was swarming with women in black. It was amazing to feel the energy and the anger, the emotional intensity was incredible.”

During an interview with NPR, Reuters staff member and Polish citizen, Justyna Pawlak, also explained how the protests caught on like wild fire, despite the lack of initial planning:

There wasn’t a real kind of serious organization committee. And what’s interesting is, you know, Poland, as you said, is a very conservative country still, even though the power of the church and the – kind of the sway of the church over the heart and soul of churchgoers has been waning, bishops still have a lot of – a lot of influence over how people vote and how they think. There’s still quite a lot of opposition for abortion on demand in Poland, but many women felt that these new proposed restrictions just simply went too far.

An Unforeseen Political Response

Following these nationwide protests, the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Polish parliament urged the PiS to reconsider the ordinance. PiS Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski surprised many by taking this suggestion to heart after witnessing the intensity of the Black Monday demonstrations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the right-wing politician realized that a total ban could potentially have adverse effects later down the road. From his perspective, a complete ban would only embolden future efforts among liberal politicians to ensure unabated access to abortions someday. In the end, Kacynski’s remarks resonated among other senior politicians and even the Catholic clergy, who couldn’t endorse prison sentences for women seeking abortions.

“What you’re proposing isn’t the right course of action,” said Kaczynski. “Considering the situation in the society, what you’re proposing will be a factor that will start processes whose effect will be exactly opposite to what you’re talking about.”

Poland’s Strong Catholic Roots

Compared to other countries in the European Union, Poland’s pre-existing reproductive laws were already among the most restrictive because of the nation’s Catholic roots. Last year approximately 1,000 women received legal abortions, which could only be fulfilled if the fetus was severely damaged, if the mother’s life was jeopardized, or if the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. Although the recently initiated bill was not ratified, these stipulations still exist today. Faced with such barriers at home and fear of stigmatization, an estimated 150,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in facilities with questionable sanitary conditions. Keeping this in mind, thousands of Polish women also travel abroad to receive abortions, especially in nearby countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia–termed “abortion tourism.”

These aforementioned policies began in 1993 as a means to replace Poland’s communist-era policies where abortions were once easily obtainable. With 95 percent of the country identifying as Catholic, it is widely acknowledged that the church yields profound “moral authority” over the population and influences people’s political decisions. Some doctors are reluctant to even facilitate abortions, even if the mother’s survival is in peril or if a pregnancy is a result of rape. There have been noted cases where doctors deliberately delayed approving abortions until the twelfth week when it’s too late to remove the fetus. Back in 2012, for example, officials tried to persuade a 14-year-old from opting out of an abortion after being raped. Another problematic incident transpired when a vision-impaired mother, Alicja Tysiąc, was forced to follow through with her pregnancy regardless of the dangers it presented to her eyesight. This brings up the question of human rights and whether or not Poland’s reproductive policies are disregarding Polish women’s wellbeing.

Interest groups such as the Stop Abortion coalition and think-tank Ordo Iuris are still actively trying to enact prohibitive laws against abortions. After all, they are the lobbyists responsible for presenting the Polish parliament with more than 400,000 signatures to start the bill in the first place. At first these groups’ endeavors were backed by the Catholic church. In the long run, though, the clergy could not promote a law allowing for the imprisonment of women and health practitioners. 

Conclusion

Public opinion over abortion appeared to drastically change once the protests materialized. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Poles now disapprove of the ban, not to mention desire the existing set of reproductive laws to become more liberalized. The Economist says that today only 14 percent of Poles condone the original ban (in hindsight), making it highly unpopular among today’s general populace.

The participants of Black Monday may have set a new precedent for other countries with restrictive abortion laws, but pro-choice activists still have a lot of work cut out for them. Certain political parties are currently drafting their own anti-abortion bills and trying to push them into legislation. For example, it is reported that PiS is pushing for a “eugenic abortions” bill that would criminalize abortions for fetuses with abnormalities–meaning that the three existing stipulations for abortions would be dwindled down to only two. So far in PiS’s tenure in Polish parliament, the group has also cut state funding for in-vitro fertilization as well as drafted legislation to ban and criminalize the morning-after pill.

To prevent further “medieval regulations” from being placed on the agenda, Poland’s opposition party, Nowoczesna (meaning “modern” in Polish), have pledged to provide women with more reproductive freedom. The liberal party partnered with the Save the Women group to plan the Black Monday protests. According to them, illegal abortions could cease to exist if the Polish government decided to introduce sex education into the classroom, allocate state-funded contraception, as well as provide wider access to qualified doctors.

Resources

BBC News: Poland Abortion: Parliament Rejects Near-Total Ban

CBC News: Poland’s Proposed Ban on Abortion Part of Broader Push to Turn Back History

Center for Reproductive Rights: Tysiąc v. Poland: Ensuring Effective Access to Legal Abortion

The Conversation: The Battle Over Abortion Rights in Poland is Not Over

Economist: Polish Women Skip Work to Protest Against an Abortion Ban

The Guardian: Poland’s Abortion Plan Near Collapse After Mass Protests

New York Times: Poland Steps Back from Stricter Anti-Abortion Law

NPR: Poland Backs Down on Abortion Plan After Extraordinary Protests

Reuters: Abortion Protests Rattle Polish Ruling Party, May Prompt Rethink

Reuters: Europe Rights Court Condemns Poland in Abortion Rape Case

Reuters: More Polish Women Seen Seeking Abortions Abroad

Vox: Poland Votes Down an Extreme Abortion Ban After Thousands of Women Go on Strike

Wall Street Journal: Poland Rejects Abortion Ban After Protests

Washington Post: Why Would Poland Make its Already Strict Abortion Law Draconian?

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Poland’s Abortion Protests: What was “Black Monday?” appeared first on Law Street.

Kimberly Miller, a nun from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, attended a book signing on November 7. After the event, the bookstore owner gave her some leftovers and a bottle of wine to bring back to the convent. That night, Miller took an Ambien, and had a glass of wine before going to bed. Little did Sister Kimberly know, her night had just begun.

She woke up the next day in New Jersey with a half-empty bottle in the back of her car and a blood alcohol content of .15, nearly double the legal limit. She had driven for almost an hour across state lines into New Jersey, and backed into a car repair shop before eyewitnesses called the police. When she was arrested for driving under the influence, she claims to have no knowledge of the incident.

Miller was hoping that her “Reverend Jekyll and Sister Hyde” experience might lessen her punishment–after all, she wasn’t even aware of the fact that she was driving at the time. In court, her lawyers argued that Miller experienced “pathological intoxication,” and never intended to drive drunk. Pathological intoxication is the phenomenon where a person’s personality and behavior drastically change after they consume alcohol, and it is a rare legal defense used to excuse a person from their drunken behavior. Typically, the defense is invoked when a person becomes exceedingly violent or impulsive after consuming a small amount of alcohol, while the nun’s experience involved her knowing consumption of Ambien. The defense must show that the condition’s effect was as strong as a mental illness would be in an insanity defense.

The presiding Judge Martin Whitcraft found that considering that Ambien has been on the market for over 16 years, a person consuming the medicine should reasonably know that its side effects worsen when paired with alcohol. The prosecutor drew attention to the specifics of the law, showing that the statute made no mention of intent–if you drive drunk, it’s your fault, whether or not you intended to do it.

Judge Whitcraft found the nun’s story to be unbelievable at best, saying “I find the defendant’s testimony less than credible. She testified that this wine was placed in the back seat by two sober, reasonable people.” Ultimately, Miller was found guilty of her DUI, but had the lesser charges against her dropped. Her license was suspended for 90 days, and she was placed on leave from her teaching position.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drunk Driving Nun’s Ambien Defense Fails appeared first on Law Street.

Today, there is a historic vote in the Republic of Ireland. It’s poised to become the first country to legalize same-sex marriage through a referendum. While select other nations allow same-sex marriage, those laws have come about as the result of a court decision or through legislation being passed. Ireland would be the first nation to legalize gay marriage through a popular vote, which is required to change its constitution. Given Ireland’s complicated relationship with religion, the fact that this nation has become the battleground for a gay marriage vote says quite a bit about the waning influence of Catholicism in the country.

The question posed to voters about the matter will be a “yes” or “no” one; they’ll be asked to confirm or deny the statement that: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” The vote has been widely discussed on social media, with hashtags like #YesEquality and #VoteYes taking the lead. There’s also been social media coverage of many Irish citizens living in various places abroad who are returning home to cast their votes.

Many young people had travelled from as far as New York and Brussels especially to cast their vote #hometovote pic.twitter.com/2j0zMgCNC0

— Carole Leger (@CaroleLeger) May 22, 2015

Look at this!! #hometovote Dublin Airport last night with People coming home to VOTE pic.twitter.com/G2U4MdyD5k

— David O’Reilly (@DavidOReilly25) May 22, 2015

Ireland has an incredibly long and storied Catholic tradition, and roughly 85 percent of Irish people identify as Catholic. The Catholic Church in Ireland has stood in opposition to the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. For example, the Catholic Iona Institute, along with other groups, have advocated for a “no” vote in today’s referendum. Common arguments cited in this debate over marriage equality appear to include the old argument about “redefining” marriage, despite the fact that this would only create the opportunity for same-sex civil marriages. There’s also concern from “No” voters over the prospect of children being raised by gay parents, despite the fact that such concerns have been handily debunked in numerous studies.

The fact that polls are looking very promising for the “Yes” voters–from what I’ve seen they’ve ranged from about 70-80 percent voting yes–really does say a lot about the future of Ireland as a Catholic stronghold. Of course, it hasn’t just been the Catholic Church’s hesitancy when it comes to social issues like gay marriage that have led to waning support. The highly publicized sexual abuse and pedophilia scandals of the last few decades garnered the Catholic Church significant amounts of criticism. For example, in 2011 a survey found that just 18 percent of Catholics in Ireland were regularly attending mass. That’s an incredibly sharp decline from 1984, when it was reported that 90 percent of practicing Catholics attended mass on a regular basis.

So, despite Ireland’s Catholic tradition, the campaign to allow marriage equality has moved forward. While the vote totals probably won’t be released until tomorrow, there’s been a large wave of support for the “Yes” vote to legalize marriage equality. Ireland, despite all odds, does seem in a good position to make history and become the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Ireland About to Make History? appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s be real, Pope Francis is the best thing to happen to the Catholic church in a long time. He is slowly but surely moving the antiquated system into the twenty-first century, denouncing those clergymen who live in excess, and generally showing goodwill toward everybody regardless of race, sexual orientation, political views, or economic standing. You know, the things Catholicism was originally based on.

And yes, some Catholics are not at all happy with Pope Francis’ modernization of church doctrine, especially when it comes to his views on sexuality.

One such naysayer is Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke who has made headlines before with his insults and reprimands of Pope Francis, as well as his extremely conservative political views. Pope Benedict had placed Burke in a high-level position within his administration, but once Pope Francis came along Burke ran into a lot of trouble.

In a Buzzfeed interview in October 2014, Burke discussed Pope Francis’ contemporary leadership with little-concealed hostility: “The pope is not free to change the church’s teachings with regard to the immorality of homosexual acts or the insolubility of marriage or any other truth of the faith.”

That is true, the pope cannot just say whatever he wants based on his personal opinions, but the truth is that he hasn’t. He has opened his arms to certain groups that the Church has previously shunned, based on the fact that the Church, historically, is supposed to do just that.

But just when you think things are getting better for the Church, someone like Cardinal Burke comes along and says something like this:

The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

This statement comes from an interview Cardinal Burke gave on January 5 to a website called “The New EMANgelization,” so you can see it just gets better. The subject of the interview was the “man-crisis” in the Catholic Church and the “feminization” of the men within it.

Cardinal Burke went on to say how the feminization of the Church is to blame for men who do not develop true “manliness,” and that men who are “confused” should be taught to “overcome these grievous temptations.”

According to Burke, though, luckily there is a whole new group of  “strong young men who desire to serve God as priests.” He goes on, “This is a welcome development, for there was a period of time when men who were feminized and confused about their own sexual identity had entered the priesthood; sadly some of these disordered men sexually abused minors; a terrible tragedy for which the Church mourns.”

Hear that women? Feminized men become sexually confused. Feminization is, according to Burke, to blame for homosexuality AND pedophilia.

Yeah…no.

Historically, women’s place in Catholicism is as the mother and the homemaker. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be a mother and a homemaker, as long as it is actually your decision. The Church has a long-standing reputation for discouraging gender equality based on the idea that women are primarily sexual creatures, bent on seducing men away from faith (they blame Eve for a helluva lot). That is why we end up with several old-fashioned religious fanatics who are, in reality, just misogynists.

I could go on for a long time about the Church’s horrible treatment of women, but for now I will just say this: people like Cardinal Burke spew opinions not truly based anywhere within the Bible or Church teachings, but rather from a place of misogyny and hate. Catholicism, at its roots, is based in love and acceptance, and luckily Pope Francis seems to grasp that.

Oh, and things like “The New EMANgelization” should definitely not exist.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cardinal Blames Feminization for Homosexuality and Pedophilia appeared first on Law Street.

A group of Catholic nuns is denouncing the influence of big money in U.S. politics by conducting a 36-city tour across the country. The group, NETWORK, led by Sister Simone Campbell, kicked off its Nuns on a Bus campaign called “We the People, We the Voters” campaign. The group is advocating social justice through voter registration and expansion. The group has been the subject of criticism from other parts of the Catholic church, though, as part of an expanding internal conflict between Vatican authority and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).

The Nuns on the Bus began their campaigning in 2012 when they condemned income inequality in battle ground states. In 2013 they addressed immigration reform. It isn’t hard to see why some more conservative church authorities would reprimand Sister Campbell and her group. A report from the Religion News Service (RNS) describes an attack by Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, on the LCWR: “(Müller) said the sisters were focusing too much on social justice issues, such as caring for the poor and advocating for immigrants, and were too active in promoting healthcare reform.” In 2012, the LCWR was censured in a “doctrinal assessment” for exactly these actions. The Vatican isn’t alone in its criticism, though. The website CatholicCulture.org came out with a scathing article by its founder, Dr. Jeff Mirus, in August. “For decades, the LCWR has been vitiated by feminism, the New Age, Wicca, Modernism and just plain secularism,” Mirus writes.

By staying largely silent, Pope Francis has yet to be fully mired in the controversy. But a column in The Guardian expresses great disappointment in the Pope: “The really disheartening thing about the pope’s unwillingness to end the nuns’ censure – indeed, about his unwillingness to openly support them – is that his stated values are no different than the ones the Leadership Conference of Women Religious is being punished for carrying out,” writer Sadhbh Walshe noted. Cardinal Müller’s reproach of the LCWR is seemingly unregulated by Francis, who has long championed a greater church focus on social justice issues.

How is social justice work compatible with Catholic teachings, and what exactly is meant by “social justice”? For Sister Campbell, NETWORK, and the LCWR, social justice includes advocating for accessible health care, immigration reform and reduced corporate influence in elections. For Cardinal Müller and the Vatican, social justice advocacy is restricted to redressing abortion access.

If nothing else, this case illustrates the complex dynamics of religious authority and the dangers of generalizing when talking about religion. Two opposing interpretations of Catholic teachings on social justice are currently at war, and we wait on Pope Francis to make a statement. While it would be immature to demand that he take one side or another, it would be equally disappointing if he did not use his clout to make a meaningful statement on the matter. This case does more than just illustrate some different Catholic interpretations; it begs the question, why shouldn’t Pope Francis come out in support of the LCWR and activist nuns like Sister Campbell?

Francis also has the opportunity reject the exclusion of feminism from sanctioned church activity. Moreover, he has the opportunity to illustrate how feminism can support sanctioned church activity. Compatibility is the question here. How is feminism compatible with current Vatican doctrine and authority? The extent to which they are compatible can be suggested and advocated for, if not expressly dictated by, Pope Francis. If feminism has truly “vitiated” organizations like NETWORK and the LCWR, then it is also responsible for anti-torture campaigns, environmental activism, and advocacy of nuclear weapons restructuring.

From such an outsider’s perspective, it will never be my place to insist on this or that church doctrine. But Pope Francis, should he make a statement, as he has the opportunity to shape the relationship between feminism and the church.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured image courtesy of [TexasImpact via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Pope Francis Can Shape Relationship Between Feminism and the Church appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the tragic and monstrous attacks on America on September 11, 2001, it is important to continue commemorating and honoring that day, and it is important to keep discussing that day’s stories and contexts. One survivor of the attacks is asking for just that. This year, Greg Trevor wrote an op-ed for New Jersey’s Star-Ledger requesting that September 11 be memorialized as a “National Day of Discussion, where Americans actively seek ways to find common ground across political, religious and cultural divides.” He suggested this as an alternative to 9/11 being commercialized like Memorial Day or rarely brought into mainstream attention like Pearl Harbor Day. America should listen to this survivor and talk about our feelings toward Islam, and our judgments about religion in general.

This summer, the Arab American Institute polled Americans about their attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Its key findings include sad statistics: just under half of Americans “support the use of profiling by law enforcement against Arab Americans and American Muslims,” while an increasing “percentage of Americans say that they lack confidence in the ability of individuals from either community to perform their duties as Americans should they be appointed to an important government position.” In the 13 years since 9/11, these numbers have only gotten worse. It’s part of a persistent Western Islamophobia. One Gallup article details this fear that so many in the West have of Muslims. At 48 percent, Muslims are the religious group most likely to feel racially or religiously discriminated against by Americans. There is great concern among Muslims internationally, too, about how the West treats them. Because the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 were Muslim, a great deal of latent Islamophobic sentiment was released after the attacks. How are we addressing this reaction?

President Obama recently reaffirmed his statement that Islamist extremists, from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, are not truly Muslim. Saying that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” he claimed that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama has made this claim before, and his predecessor affirmed the same. Less than a week after 9/11, President George W. Bush said that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” On the one hand, these proclamations from American presidents are laudable and can do much to temper Islamophobia in the U.S. On the other hand, it isn’t their place to make claims like that about an entire religion.

Let’s get something straight: religion is kind of complicated. There are a lot of religious texts, doctrines, and mandates that condone, value, and encourage violence. This isn’t restricted to Islam. The Old and New Testaments, too, have inspired a great deal of violence. Religions that originated in the East are not free from it, either; this summer Buddhists in Burma again attacked their Muslim neighbors.

Yet peace is prevalent in religious texts, too. Love, compassion, and understanding are fundamental in many religions, Islam included. Both these presidents are Christians, but they were more than willing to paint the over one billion adherents with one broad brush. I do not think that one person of any religion should make a broad claim about each of its adherents. Religion is a complex web of faith that we should be wary of characterizing singularly. President Obama is right in that Islam is a peaceful practice. President Obama is wrong, too, as devout Muslims have looked to their texts for justification of sick violence.

Politically, it’d be preferable if religion could be summed up by either “peace” or “violence” or some other trait. But religion’s complexity, dynamism, and diversity make it interesting, relevant, and beautiful, even. Of course, the aspects of violence contribute in no way to that beauty. Should people use religion as a justification for violence? Never. But to ignore that violence is a part of religion’s history, present, and most likely its future is unfortunately a mistake.

This is why we need a Day of Discussion. This is why we need to talk, learn, and grow. We can’t be prejudicial of Muslims, but we sure can be prejudicial of the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have to be mature enough to condemn those Muslims and not condemn all Muslims. Hindsight allows us to condemn the Spanish Inquisitors who persecuted people of other faiths. Those Catholics did horrible things, but we can’t condemn all Catholics or Catholicism generally. Making these distinctions is important, and generalizing is dangerous. If we listen to survivor Greg Trevor and sit down to talk about it a little more, I think we would be on the right path.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence, Religion, and the Need for a 9/11 Day of Discussion appeared first on Law Street.