Archive for the ‘ Human Rights ’ Category

Is the Koran Burning the Same as the Cordoba Mosque Building? *Cue resounding no…

John Boehner made an interesting (ridiculous) statement earlier today, addressing both the Cordoba Initiative and Terry Jones, the radical conservative pastor from Gainseville, Florida, in the same breath:

“Just because you have the right to do something in America, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do…”

This is just a testament to how ridiculous this debate has come to. Allow me to play Captain Obvious and list some problems with Boehner’s comparison of the Cordoba Initiative and Terry Jones:

- It’s interesting that Christians and Jews are coming out trying to appeal to Jones not to proceed with the burning. They are also appealing to the public that Jones version of radical Christianity does not define Christianity as a whole (something the Cordoba Initiative is trying to accomplish as well, speaking and living out against radical, violent Islam…).

- Terry Jones actions are actions out of fear and are blatantly meant to cause a divide and a reaction. His action will incite violence, as warned by General Petraeus himself. The Cordoba Initiative, on the other hand, is built upon the premise of peace, tolerance, and community.

- Terry Jones is the radically violent fringe of Christianity, Feisal Abdul Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative are the peaceful, mainstream vein of Islam. As Jones speaks of burning Islam’s holy book, Rauf speaks this:

“The wonderful outpouring of support for our right to build this community center from across the social, religious and political spectrum seriously undermines the ability of anti-American radicals to recruit young, impressionable Muslims by falsely claiming that America persecutes Muslims for their faith. These efforts by radicals at distortion endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide. This is why Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides. The paradigm of a clash between the West and the Muslim world will continue, as it has in recent decades at terrible cost. It is a paradigm we must shift.”

Rauf means to influence the impressionable young Muslims who do not feel accepted in society to become a part of a peaceful community and “to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology.” Jones actions will simply give those young Muslims more reason to feel alienated in western culture.

Boehners’ ridiculous remark just adds a bigger voice to the subtle bigotry that is becoming not so subtle here in the United States. To further alienate the Muslim world out of fear and hatred is giving Osama Bin Laden what he wants, and more fuel to train his radical extremists in terrorism and hate.

These kinds of comments are simply aiding and abetting terrorism itself…

Share

The 14th Amendment, “Anchor Babies”, Founding Fathers, and a Reality Check

“Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.” Historian Oscar Handlin-1952

There’s been a resurgence in heated discussion over citizenship, immigration, and the rights of foreigners here on American Soil. Disputes have broken specifically over “anchor babies”‘ a term referring to children of illegal aliens who are born here in the United States, therefore a naturalized citizen. American naturalization rights were officially scribed and adopted via the 14th amendment in 1868, fresh out of the Civil War and the emancipation proclamation. Section 1 states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As many historians point, this amendment’s main focus was on newly freed African slaves post-emancipation, barring former slave states and powers from denying former slaves American citizenship.  Therefore, politicians  like Ron Paul and John Boehner now are arguing that a change to the 14th amendment is needed in light of recent turmoil over immigration. This is a compelling argument, at least on the surface. But turmoil over immigration isn’t a recent issue, so let’s take a quick look at some aspects of this argument…

The founding fathers seemed torn over the issue of immigration. One of the grievances of the fathers acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence was the issue of naturalization: “obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, [and] refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither.” Benjamin Franklin wrote of the “rapture” that foreigners felt over the freedoms soon to come to America after the revolution, and how a wave of immigrants,”removing to America, with their families and fortunes, as soon as peace and our independence shall be established, that ’tis generally believed we shall have a prodigious addition of strength, wealth, and arts from the emigrations of Europe,” was expected.

But even to stick to historical intent would mean a very different society today. Originally, naturalization was  intended exclusively for white males, hence the Naturalization Act of 1790:

“any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen”

Interestingly enough,  white, male immigrants were given a a 2 year window of time as residents here in the states, presumably to appreciate and assimilate into American culture, before they were offered citizenship. This is a small issue that Michelle Malkinites conveniently looked over, arguing that the Act of 1790 was a heated debate over whether America was “selling citizenship too cheaply.”

In reality, there wasn’t any restrictive immigration policy from 1790 to 1875, rather immigration was quite inclusive (as long as you fit the demographic of white male and the residency requirements, modified to 5 years in 1798).

So, in order to argue that the context of the 14th amendment is not conducive to the current issue of immigration and that the founding fathers would not approve of “anchor babies,” is unbelievably missing the forest for the trees. The exclusive context of much of the first part of American history is not easily applicable today.

Seemingly though, what is lost in this debate, is the rapture (not fear) the founding fathers felt when masses of immigrants came to join in the freedom and opportunity that America had to offer. The founding fathers continued to side on naturalization rather than restriction, acknowledging the risks of this decision, but ultimately determined that naturalization is more “conducive to the liberty of republicanism.” Many argue that immigrants are a stain on society, and anchor babies are just an avenue for illegals to enter and take advantage of our public programs without having to pay taxes, blindly denying the fact that many immigrants crossing the border come at a high-risk (much like traversing the Atlantic ocean to find promise and security) in order to find opportunity and work here in the states, and have become serious economic pillars in our country.

Those seeking to preserve the spirit and liberties of America are now seemingly restricting the liberties and freedoms that our founding fathers fought so hard to provide. This is a difficult discussion full of emotion, prejudice (on both sides), and stubbornness. But the founding fathers never meant to restrict the oppressed from entering the United States. Now, the definition of the oppressed has evolved over time, including women, african-americans, native americans, and yes, hispanics, to name a few. America, our great nation, should remain true to her legacy and with open arms grant freer opportunity to those who come here for opportunity and that famous American liberty. Granted, this is a simple discourse, open for more discussion (of which I will post more soon). But until then, ponder on this:

“I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration.”

Thomas Jefferson

Share

It came to the end.

I want to say I failed, but how can I say so when I learned  so much. In the traditional sense I did fail. I didn’t make it to Sunday, yes, I ate something last night. I was at a friends apartment hanging out until it was clearly past my bed time so I could wake up at 5 a.m. Again I got in the car and it hit me. I would like to say it was something spiritual that God challenged my life with that made me feel release from my fast, but it wasn’t. I was driving home and began to feel immensely sick and dizzy. I got to my apartment where my roommate also was laying day sick from some unknown illness that I was desperate not to catch.

I began to see how he was and explained I was starting to feel really bad. Well I went to go lay down hopeful that sleeping would be an adequate way to forget the dizziness, nausea, and headache I was going through. Well after laying there for a while just praying it became to the point that I could no longer bear it. Nearly for days and I was done. I cheated out, ate about a two spoonfuls of rice and a piece of toast. Yet while I was disappointed with myself that my body got to the best of me I subtly realized something I have never actually experienced before.

We hear over and over again that Africa is a starving nation, and it’s not just Africa, but many places around the world even some places here in America (albeit not in as a sever fashion). I have never felt so hungry in my life as I did that night and as much as I hate to admit it, I had my way out. I knew no matter how bad it got out I could always eat something, but I could never imagine what that means to not be able to at all. While I can’t imagine that I know there are people who go through that every day. The become so hungry and have no way out, none at all, not even a shelter to find, no scraps to find.

It makes me want to do something, to want to change something, to find a way to feed people. I have heard all of the statistics, I know what the improbable is, I know what the church in America is capable of. Beyond all of this I know what can be done, but I am not worried about the can I am worried about the how. How do we do this? How do we stop world hunger with using the power of the church and with showing the love of Christ that needs to be clearly shown. How can we spread the gospel to those who are dying of hunger? Shoes, clothes, presents, friends are all very very good things to be given to people around the world, but so many lack just the necessity of food and water. Diseases may come from a lack of shoes, but death comes so much more immediately from lack of food. I want help. I want to know what we can do to show the church what we have a responsibility to do. I know I would love to see followers of Christ who have never experienced this feeling to go without food for even three or four days. Learn what it does to your body to lack food, to be completely without. Any thoughts I would love to hear, but for now I am going to contemplate more on what I think we can do.

Share