Destroying the Rock and the Hard Place: Creating a Middle Ground for Religion and Science

Ever since fire was brought down to man, discovery has always been on the forefront of the human mind. This desire has driven mankind to explore every facet of life, from arts to philosophy to the sciences. However, like in the Grecian myths, exploration can put mankind in conflict with their deities, creating controversies, conflicts, and contentions between advancing in these areas of life and religion. As time presses forward, “public religions. . . [often] make claims about . . . religious and secular arguments . . . about stem cell research, abortion, cloning, evolution,” (Longest and Smith) with the few deciding what the majority should believe. These decisions, especially ones regarding the sciences, can create disconnections between the believer and the religion, causing many to question what they should believe. The Barna Group, a research foundation dedicated to researching topics important to Christian ministries, discovered that the supposed rift between religion and science caused those who participated in the sciences for a living to “struggle to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling.” (Group)

This rift does not only affect those studying the sciences, but those in stages of young adulthood. One youth found it difficult to believe that “looking right at the facts –evolution and science— [religions are] saying no, there is none.” (Greene) Because of this, many churches and in turn, entire religions, come off as “antagonistic to science,” (Group) putting the believer between a rock and a hard place; their religion or the facts in front of their face. In this period of exponential scientific discoveries, youth are increasingly finding themselves on the scientific side of the fence.

However, this supposed conflict does not have to continue. In order to retain youth and young adults through this period of scientific discovery, clergy must be willing to take a more open minded approach. This open mindedness does not mean the basic beliefs must change, instead, the approach given to the sciences must change. There is no reason “to think that science calls on Christian faith to change,” (Van Woudenberg) or vice versa. Instead, adopting the approach of ancient Muslims, who embraced the sciences and treated scientific discoveries as expanding their understanding of religion (Yalcinkaya), could create a more tolerant environment, in which the science and religious minded could worship peacefully and in conjunction with one another.

Works Cited

Greene, David. "More Young People Are Moving Away From Religion, But Why?" 15 January 2013. npr.org. 3 November 2014 .

Group, Barna. "Six Reasons Young Christians are Leaving the Church." 2011. barnagroup.com. 3 11 2014.

Longest, Kyle C. and Christian Smith. "Conflicting or Compatible: Beliefs about Religion and Science xAmong Emerging Adults in the United States." Sociological Forum (2011): 846-866.

Van Woudenberg, Rene. "Limits of Science and the Christian Faith." Science and Christian Belief (2013): 129-148.

Yalcinkaya, M. Alper. "Science as an Ally of Religion: a Muslim Appropriation of 'The Conflict Thesis'." British Society for the History of Science (2010): 161-181.

Celebrating the Immoral: "American Justice and Divine Mercy: Thoughts on Osama bin Laden's Death"

On September 11, 2001, America’s world stopped turning. A war against those who had attacked us was declared and we swore to bring the one behind the attacks down. Over three years ago, SEAL Team 6, a team of elite American Special Operatives, fulfilled that promise and the world celebrated. Many Americans’ claimed that “justice has been done.” (111) Patrick Clark, a Catholic blogger, responded to the “outpouring of “solidarity” among American[s],” (112) in celebration of this death. While using a lens of Catholicism, Clark is able to question whether or not true justice, as taught by Christ, was done. Through artful use of rhetorical questions, drawing unlikely parallels, and bringing coincidences to light, Clark creates a successful, thought provoking argument in regards to bin Laden’s death and Christian Americans’ reaction. Clark efficiently convinces a united audience that although we may “yearn to celebrate his death,” (113) this jubilation would be highly immoral, as the “expression of forgiveness [in regards to the execution of Osama]” (112) is disconnected from “divine mercy proclaimed by Jesus to Saint Faustina,” the saint associated with Divine Mercy Sunday.

Clark poses thought provoking questions, such as whether or not “it [is] appropriate to feel . . . a little uncomfortable with” (111) calling Osama bin Laden’s execution a just action, to begin the overarching process of reflection in the audience’s mind. Clark is able to tie questions like this throughout his blog post, asking the audience to do a double take on whose justice had been done. Through this, he is able to evoke strong emotional ties to traditional Catholics masses, where priest often ask similar questions. These range from the appropriateness of celebrating the “death of the unjust,” (112)  to how the “utter absence of any public expression . . . of forgiveness for crimes. . . [Should] bother us as Christians.” (112) Clark uses his audience’s primarily Catholic beliefs, alluding to messages brought  to Saint Faustina and teachings of Augustine, to tug at the heartstrings of his audience, making them question their own morality in the wake of Osama’s death.

Moreover, he questions whether or not the “blood of the slain . . .  find[s] its answer in the blood that pours from Christ’s side.” (112) Clark asks the readers whether or not their belief in the redeeming power of the crucifixion was truly fulfilled on Divine Mercy Sunday, prompting their answer in a way that is in line with the thesis of his blog post. As he asks this question, Clark is able to convince the audience using both logic and emotions that the morality of the “outpouring of solidarity . . . in the wake of bin Laden’s death” (112) is incongruous with the “divine justice and mercy” (112) that was achieved through Christ’s sacrifice. Through underlying questions, Clark is able to call American’s to repentance, stating that their belief in Christ’s mercy is not apparent by their acts of elation.

Patrick Clark not only calls readers to repentance through rhetorical questions, but also through using unlikely parallels. First, Clark embellishes similarities between bin Laden and Christ’s death in order to make the reader uncomfortable with their acts of celebration. Both deaths were called by many as “an act of divine mercy,” yet Clark emphasizes the parallels by associating “the bullet-hole in bin Laden’s head with the hole in Jesus’ side. . .” The gross association unseats the audience, by comparing someone so vile with the Christian ideal of perfection. Both deaths, while vastly different in purpose, could be considered the same, as American Christians celebrated both as an act of divine mercy. Through this seemingly fallacious argument, Clark is able to convince the audience that death of this terrorist was not an act of mercy or justice in traditional Christian sense of the word.

Clark also argues that our jubilation, with “waving our flags and honking our horns. . .” should not be compatible with “the Jubilate Deo of Psalm 100.” (112) Psalms 100, in the Catholic cannon of scripture, is a celebratory psalm, worshiping and praising God for his mercies. American’s reaction to Osama’s death, with “waving our flags and honking our horns,” (112), is comparable in Clark’s eyes, and through rhetorical questions, Clark is able to invoke the harsh reality; Americans’ praised bin Laden’s executioners in similitude of praising God. He argues that we “commended [our] enemy . . . to the Navy SEALS,” (113) and in turn, praised them for this act of divine mercy and misplaced their trust in brute force, rather than Christ like love.  Clark creates a paradox in the readers’ minds by drawing this parallel between both celebrated saviors. He uses the allusions in a way reminiscent of the Savior’s parables, and through paralleling two opposites, initiates a self-reflective thought process in which the audience is convinced that the “acts of “justice” . . . carried out” were “unjust, unnecessary. . . [and] even blasphemous,” (112) especially considering our jubilation. In calling the reaction blasphemous, Clark evokes a feeling of guilt, creating a strong argument towards the lack of compassion and justice in this action. Through paralleling the two acts of celebration, Clark effectively criticizes the lack of thought given in celebration towards Osama bin Laden’s death.

While parallels between Christ and Osama, and SEAL Team 6 and God, are woven throughout Clark’s blog post, he does not fail to address the audience in regards to how the response should have gone. In referencing John Paul II’s forgiveness towards a hit man, Clark criticizes American’s need for the death of a terrorist to gain justice, arguing that instead, we should have responded the way the late Pope did, “embrac[ing] and forg[iving] the enemy that sought to take his life. . .” (113). Here, he directly addresses his primarily Catholic audience. John Paul II was beloved by the majority of Catholics. As with Mormons and the Prophet, Catholics often look to the Pope for ideals on how to live and obtain true happiness. By drawing the stark contrast between the two reactions to an enemy, Patrick Clark reprimands the audience, communicating a failure of the model of holiness that was honored on Divine Mercy Sunday.

Divine Mercy Sunday is an often repeated date in Clark’s post. This Sunday is one held in high regards by Catholics, as it not only follows Easter Sunday, but is also the day for true forgiveness and benevolence.  The repetition is picked up by the reader and Patrick Clark does not fail to use this to his advantage. Coincidentally, this Sunday was also the day that Osama was killed. In recognizing this unintended occurrence, Clark points out the failure of Christian mercy, as this day was for true compassion, but was also set aside for the beatification of John Paul II. This coincidence is emphasized several times throughout the paper, especially highlighting his teaching of “total gratuity, forgiveness, and reconciliation.” Clark is able to persuade the audience that contrary to popular belief, the “justice [that] has been done” (111) is not in line with what Pope John Paul II taught, as well with the audience’s theology. 

May 2, 2011 was not only a day of solidarity among Catholics worldwide—the day Pope John Paul II was beatified--was also a day of unanimous celebration among Americans, for the enemy of the country was served justice. Patrick Clark is able to argue through communicating coincidences, exaggerated parallels, and using rhetorical questions to appeal to the traditional Christian audience, that bin Laden’s death is not in line with the doctrine of Christ’s mercy nor his sacrifice to satisfy the needs of justice. Throughout his argument, Clark is able to communicate the need for Christian justice, quoting Pope John Paul II that “one’s neighbor must be loved, even if an enemy, with the same love with which the Lord loves him.” (113) While “Osama bin Laden was a murderer and a criminal,” (113) Clark reminds his audience that while “celebrating his death,” (113) would tempting, such actions go against the very “justice and mercy of our Lord.” (113)

Bibliography

 Clark, Patrick. "American Justice and Divine Mercy: Thoughts on Osama bin Laden's Death." BYU. Perspectves on Religion in America. Provo, UT: BYU Academic Publishing, 2011. 111-113. Textbook.

Rhetorical Analysis

Sarah Whitworth

Kaleigh Spooner

Writing 150

October 13, 2014

Questions, Parallels, and Coincidence in “American Justice and Divine Mercy: Thoughts on Osama Bin Laden’s Death”

On September 11, 2001, the American world stopped turning. A war against those who had attacked us was declared and we swore to bring the one behind these attacks down. Over three years ago, Seal Team 6 fulfilled that promise and the world celebrated. I remember that day well; most Americans do. However, Patrick Clark questions the justice of his education. Through artfully using rhetorical questions, drawing unlikely parallels, and bringing coincidences to light, Clark creates a successful, thought provoking argument in regards to Bin Laden’s death.

Clark begins his article with rhetorical questions and weaves them throughout the remainder of his piece. These questions range from the appropriateness of celebrating the death to how the “utter absence of any public expression . . . of forgiveness for crimes. . .bother us as Christians?” Clark uses his audience’s Christian beliefs to enable deeper thought, requiring us question our own morality. Clark’s inquiries artfully weave ethos and logos together.

Next, the use of unlikely parallels evokes the reader’s morality. Clark parallels Bin Laden’s death with Christ’s, as many called both “an act of divine mercy.” He ties rhetorical questions into his parallels by questioning whether or not we can “associate the bullet-hole in bin Laden’s head with the hole in Jesus’ side . . . ?” By drawing a parallel between two extremes, Clark achieves his purpose of convincing the audience that bin Laden’s death was not an act of mercy or justice in the Christian sense of the word. Moreover, he argues whether or not our celebration with “waving our flags and honking our horns. . .” should be compatible with “the Jubilate Deo of Psalm 100?” Psalms 100 is a celebratory psalm, praising God and calling for worship. By comparing the celebrations, Clark invokes a harsh reality; Americans celebrated a death in a similar way of celebrating God.  

In addition to drawing simple parallels between Christ and Osama, Clark aslo draws parallels between American’s and Pope John Paul II. While one was obtaining justice through the death of a terrorist, the late Pope gained justice though he “. . . knew what it felt like to take an assassin’s bullet.”

Finally, Clark strengthens his argument with unlikely coincidences. The death of bin laden was “carried out on Divine Mercy Sunday . . . the same Divine Mercy Sunday set aside for the beatification of the late Pope John Paul II . . .?” This coincidence is strengthened by tying in the Pope’s quote on solidarity: “. . . One’s neighbor must be loved, even if an enemy, with the same love with which the Lord loves him. . .” This coincidence does not go unnoticed, as it is woven through the paper and tied in with his use of rhetorical questions, inquiring about the “. . .expression of forgiveness. . .” and “commended [the enemy]. . . to the Navy SEALS” on a day set aside as “a universal commemoration of divine mercy.” By drawing these coincidences, Clark effectively convinces the audience that this act did not coincide with the Christian ideology of mercy and justice.

Through communicating coincidences, exaggerated parallels, and using rhetorical questions to weave everything together, Clark effectively convinces the audience the act of Osama bin Laden’s death was not in line with Christ’s doctrine of mercy nor his sacrifice to satisfy the needs of justice. Patrick Clark makes the audience believe that it may be tempting to “celebrate his death” yet cannot, as the “execution of Christ” stops such a celebration dead in its tracks.

 

Thesis Proposal: Questions, Parallels and Coincidence in “American Justice and Divine Mercy: Thoughts on Osama Bin Laden’s Death”

Thesis: By artfully using rhetorical questions, drawing unlikely parallels, and bringing coincidences to light, Patrick Clark creates a thought provoking argument in regards Osama Bin Laden’s death.

1)      Clark’s article is littered with rhetorical questions ranging from “whose justice exactly?” to “Shouldn’t this [lack of forgiveness] bother us as Christians?” Clark’s questions pull not only from basic ethics, but also from Catholic and general Christian belief.  Clark occasionally begs the question, implying that his view of mercy and justice is correct. Nevertheless, the use of such devices gives credibility, provoking the audience to think deeper than just on the death of Osama Bin Laden.

2)      Clark also uses unlike parallels between Christ’s and Bin Laden’s death in order to evoke regret in the audience’s mind. He intertwines his parallels with beautiful questions, causing the audience to rethink the celebration of Bin Laden’s death, answering our questions of justice with the “blood that flows from Christ’s side.”

3)      Besides parallels, Clark also brings up several coincidences, specifically the fact that Bin Laden was killed on Divine Mercy Sunday, that John Paul II spoke about loving the enemy, and that while we buried Bin Laden, it was in a way of corporal justice. 

When Will My Paper Show What I Think Inside?

Writing is a hard process; I've learned that writing what I think is even harder.

                The opinion editorial is done. My long hours of frustration, of begging the keys to will up their story, of pleading with myself to become less professional has finally paid off. Ideas that were once made up in ranting now come across in a semi-cohesive manner. Although it’s only a final draft, with many more edits lurking beneath the surface, it is finished. This paper was a constant battle between mind and might, making me question my abilities quite often.

 As a fiction writer, my creativity felt stifled by my professionalism, my desire to sound as educated as possible. My brainstorming was caught by traps of continuous writing, of deciding arguments as my hands flew across the keys. Often, structuring the paper required large amounts of coaxing my fingers to yield up sentences to portray my ideas, without sounding like a vengeful feminist.

Having others read my work was like sending off a child to school; I would cringe and hover, hoping the end report will be something worthwhile. However, critiques brought about great changes and I am thankful for my group for listening to my rants and reading and revising my editorial.

Overall, the opinion editorial writing process proved to be as much of a challenge as a success. I feel more confident in my abilities to transform overly professional articles into relatable ones. I also enjoyed learning about different planning methods, even though I stuck with my reliable “writing by the seat of my pants” method.

Feminism, Rethought

Here's my latest draft! Let me know what you think!

Three months, maybe more. That’s how long I endured the almost daily harassment from the lunch table across form me. Even though I wore jeans and a tee shirt, the crass catcalls and crude comments still poured in from the myriad of boys. Not a single word of defense came from my peers or even my teachers, until I stood up for myself. And yet, I’m still asked why I need feminism. I’m asked constantly why such a self-respecting LDS woman would want to associate herself with something so intent on destroying the family, the Priesthood and society as we know it. Even when I convince one that “not all feminists are like that,” another three or four anti-feminists rear their angry heads. I feel like Hercules, doomed to fight a never ending hydra of misogyny and hatred. What antifeminists-and most of the public- don’t understand is that feminism is crucial to survival in the socio-political sphere and to true equality. It is my belief that in order for true equality to succeed and thrive, the general public’s perception of feminism must undergo a drastic change.

Our world thrives on fanaticism. The best examples are present in the media: radical Christians, Muslims, dieters, and politicians always dot the news and take up the most space in our mind. Because of this, true meanings are often lost beneath the sea of extremism. This love for radical extremes has pushed feminism in to the zone of burning bras and female priesthood ordination. The first question that usually follows “Yes, I’m a feminist,” is “How do you feel about Ordain Women?” That is usually followed with “you need a man to control you,” or “if you don’t watch what you say, you’ll be in trouble for apostasy,” or, my personal favorite, “How do you expect to have be a good mother if you’re going to always be gone?” The idea that all feminists hate and want to subjugate men has slowed the progress to true equality.

Wait, true equality? Isn’t feminism all about women’s rights and women being better than men? Emma Watson’s latest speech finally set the record straight, extending the invitation to fight for gender equality to men, as well as women. She calls on men to identify as feminists, to be willing to break through the “manliness” that our society has labelled them with. By working for equality for women, equality for all people, men included, will follow. And that equality will move into the socio-political realm. Women will be able to be driven, without being called “bossy” and men will be able to express their emotions without being “girly.”

Other than just descriptions, sexual harassment and assault will be treated with more respect. When feminism is redefined in our society as striving for gender equality, no longer will myself, or any other woman, have to clutch pepper spray and jump at every noise, fearing a rapist or wrongdoer is hiding in the bushes at night. No longer will we feel devalued by catcalls and car honking and whistling, no longer will we worry whether or not a late night walk with a boy is a bad idea. No longer will the length of a woman’s skirt dictate a man’s thoughts or the inability to say no control a man’s actions. Redefining feminism moves the responsibility to the perpetrator, rather than the victim.

But redefining feminism in the public’s eyes isn’t just about women or just protecting them, it’s about men. Rape, as explained by Andrew Bailey, will stop being “hilarious, but only when it happens to guys.”  When our thoughts on feminism change, the shackles of gender stereotypes will encourage men to be more open about feelings and thoughts and ideas. Feelings won’t be defined to one gender and men will finally be able to express emotion without being ‘less of a man.’  Both men and women will be able to experience a greater quality of life when we shift our focus from extremism to gender equality.

 

So what do we have to do to experience the benefits of redefining feminism? Well, a series of drastic deviations from societal norms must occur. First, the LDS community must realize that feminism has been misrepresented by Ordain Women. The majority of Mormon feminists agree that Ordain Women is a form of radicalism; however, most do not. True feminism is not focused on tearing down the church, the Priesthood, or motherhood. Then, equality must be the foremost point of discussion. When education regarding feminism’s true motives, gender equality, is more openly discussed, then a shift in women’s socio-political stance will change as well. When feminists are accepted as moderate, normal women who strive for equal pay and employment opportunities and rights, then more open discussion about said benefits will be able to happen. Finally, we must recognize feminism as the driving force behind the current rights we have gained. Many women argue that “since they can vote and own property and wear pants,” then feminism is not needed. They are sadly mistaken, since those rights weren’t just magically given, they were fought for, by feminists. When these changes occur, a brighter future will be closer for all.

Feminism is the blood that fuels my socio-political life. Sadly, I’m often asked why I need feminism, because the public has been misinformed about feminism’s true purpose.  I need feminism because sexual harassment is a real thing, because women are objectified in every part of the media, because my sisters in the Middle East are shot for going to school and sold off like animals to men two or three times their age. I need feminism because for three months, I loathed going to school, because the harassment was filed under “hormonal male actions,” and quickly forgotten.  And for that equality to finally succeed, feminism needs to be rethought and redefined in the public’s mind. Because until we are all equal, no on truly is.

 

 

Feminism, Redefined

Here's one option for my opinion editorial, let me know what you think!

Three months, maybe more. That’s how long I had to endure the almost daily harassment from the lunch table across from me. Most days, I wore jeans and a tee shirt, but still, the crass catcalls and comments still poured in from the myriad of boys. No one blinked an eye or even stood up for me, until I stood up for myself. And yet, I’m still asked why I need feminism.

I get asked why a self-respecting LDS woman would want to associate herself with a ideology intent on destroying the family, the Priesthood, and the world as we know it. Even when I convince one individual that “not all feminists are like that,” another three or four anti-feminists rear their angry heads. I feel like Hercules, fighting a never ending hydra of misogyny and hatred. What these women, and men, don’t understand is that feminism is crucial to survival in the socio-political sphere. It’s crucial to true equality. If someone were to ask my why equality hasn’t occurred yet, I would respond, stating that true feminism hasn’t been fully accepted. It’s my belief that in order for true equality to succeed and thrive, that the general public’s perception of feminism must undergo a drastic change.

Feminism recently has been most commonly associated with burning bras and having women become like the Amazons of ancient Greece. The public’s perception of this extreme version of the feminist ideology has been propagated by our love of fanaticism. This distortion of true feminism persuades many men and women alike that in fact, feminism is detrimental to many aspects of the LDS culture, namely, marriage and family and priesthood. However, true feminism is much different than the radical connotation many individuals think about when feminism is brought up. The most true and basic form of this ideology is that true equality is necessary to promote any progress. Wait, true equality? Then why would such a philosophy focus on females, you ask. Much like any other minority group, the rights of the individual are made to match the rights of the privileged. In order to achieve true equality, the historical denial of women’s rights, both socially and politically, need to be identified and rectified. Moreover, since we are still living in a patriarchal society and women are still denied rights, the term “fem“ applies to the true definition, as well as the radical versions. For our society to progress, we have to acknowledge the fact that historical denial of rights has occurred and realize, more importantly, that the more commonly accepted definition among feminists does not include subjugating men and burning bras.

            Because feminism is most commonly associated with the radical version, women’s rights to sociopolitical equality are being denied throughout both the world and the United States. One may argue that the United States and other major developed countries have laws against discrimination, so rights can’t possibly be infringed upon. While laws maybe in place for the protection of women, the denial happens by individuals and often, this goes unreported. Take, for example, the case of a woman being raped. Very few rapes are actually reported, and, as alluded to in the French short film, “The Oppressed Majority,” victims are often patronized and treated with disdain. Another prime example is the social normality of what is acceptable for men and women. If a woman is sexually harassed, she shouldn’t be offended, ‘because he was just complimenting her,’ or ‘that maybe she shouldn’t dress like a piece of meat.’ These examples show that while our society has taken the legal proceedings to protect women, the societal changes haven’t occurred. In the political realm, the same is true. Women in Congress, when taking a stance on a particular issue, are often described as “bossy,” and “______,” while men are called “driven” and passionate.” IN addition to adjectives describing one’s character, women are more often criticized for their decision to run for office, being called “poor mothers and wives.” These examples are overwhelming evidence that feminism is still needed in today’s society. While these denials are prevalent, while challenges to these are often called for, while true feminism is the driving force behind such societal changes, no rewriting of feminism hasn’t been widely accepted by the general public. Why? Because of the continuing negative connotation. If we are to change the sociopolitical denials to unspoken acceptance, then the definition accepted among the world’s population must change.

For a change to take place, several deviations to societal normality must occur.  We, as a society, must be willing to accept that first, feminism is not about destroying the LDS church, the traditional role of women, or any similar social structures. Equality must be recognized and discussed as the main purpose behind feminism, that is, equality for both men and women. Feminism must also be accepted as the driving force behind equal voting rights, equal pay, and equal employment opportunities for men and women alike. In order to truly reach an egalitarian society, in order for true leaps and bounds to be made in the name of sociopolitical progress, feminism must experience a change in connotation, especially in the public’s eye.

            Feminism is an ideology of equality for both genders. It enables women to choose their own path, regardless if it is a male centered one or not. It enables women, and men, to feel strength after sexual harassment and even abuse. It empowers women, giving them the very life breath for sociopolitical involvement.  For this life blood to be fully embraced, feminism requires a drastic change of connotation among the public.