U.S. Court Allows Abuse Case vs. Vatican

U.S. Court Allows Abuse Case vs. Vatican

Just wanted to add this up here before I go back to writing another essay...According to the Wallstreet Journal, this is the first time the Vatican has been held liable for sexual abuse cases in a court this high.

"The appeals court found that the church government may be held liable for actions taken in the U.S. based on the Vatican's policies or directives.

"What the court has allowed us to do is proceed against the Vatican for the conduct of the U.S. bishops because of the bishops' failure to ... report child abuse," said William F. McMurry, the attorney for three men who claim they were abused as children by priests in the Louisville, Ky., archdiocese. He is seeking class-action status in the district-court case.

The ruling marks the first time that a federal appeals court recognized that the Vatican could be liable under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 law that governs when a foreign nation or its agents can be sued, said Marci Hamilton, a constitutional-law scholar who is part of the legal team in the Louisville case.

"If someone can crack that barrier of immunity, it opens the door to other claims against the Catholic church," says Jonathan Levy, a Washington, D.C., attorney who represents concentration-camp survivors in a suit against numerous parties including the Vatican bank. The Vatican, in that case, prevailed in its claim of sovereign immunity."

Children and Religion

So I am in the middle of essays and exams but did not want to neglect this for too long. A problem that I have with religious groups is how there is so much attention given to indoctrinating the children. Focusing on Christianity here, regardless of what your belief is of "interpreting" the bible - whether you take it literally or not - there are still some horrific stories in there. I say 'horrific' deliberately. When children are taught about the bible these stories are conveniently left out and they are given only the message "love one another." Now, before anyone gets upset with that statement and starts accusing me of wanting to read violent stories to kids, let me explain. While that message, "love one another," is a very peaceful and important message, that is not all that is the bible. There are rules demanding that raped women be stoned to death or forced to marry their rapist, that disobedient sons be stoned to death, and then there are the stories of slaughter. Before children can rationalize their beliefs they are presented with a clean happy notion that god means love and therefore Christianity, and only Christianity, means happiness and love as well. By the time these kids can read the bible for themselves they either feel that it has been explained well enough and see no need to read anything else in it, or force themselves to either ignore it or somehow interpret it to mean something entirely different. What is wrong with this? one may ask. If you were to wait for a certain age for children to be introduced to the bible and religion and they could read all the way through it, how many do you think would choose to believe in this particular god or at least the teachings of this book? Why can you simply not tell children to love one another rather than saying to do so because a god tells them to? I am not saying that no one would choose Christianity after an undoctrinated childhood - I know people who were raised without religion and chose this particular religion later on in life - I just have a problem with this being forced into children's minds as fact. What would happen if stories from the bible were read as bedtime stories alongside fairy tales, either presenting both as a way of life or both as simply stories?

 The image I have included is a religious tract from Chick publications intended to convert children to Christianity and can be found at www.chick.com. 

A comparison...

Alright, so I am not entirely sure I wish to bring this UPS article up once again but I think it is interesting to compare to another article I found linked from the Muslimah Media Watch website. Here's the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6565145.stm
This took place in Cairo rather than Canada but discusses the rights of Muslim women ignored by a news company. In 2002, two women news presenters wore their hijab head pieces and were not allowed on the air. This article does not cite the reasons given by their employers other than the the employers "objected" to this. In the Toronto UPS article it cites the full dress being a safety risk. I do not deny that there is racism or cultural intolerance within areas of Canadian life, nor do I think religious discrimination should be allowed, however, should credence not be given to safety concerns if they are legitimate? However, with this case in Cairo, what harm is there in respecting a religious freedom to wear the headpiece? Were they concerned about presenting one religious ideal over anther? If this is the case, one should look into whether they allow other presenters wear crosses or any other religious paraphenalia. No reason is given and even the court ruled in the women's favour, demanding that be allowed on the air. To me there is a major difference between the case with UPS in Toronto and this news agency in Cairo. The article from the Toronto Star is lacking in details as to whether the women were actually discriminated against becase of their religion on top of these safety concerns, or if it truly is only a safety issue. However, it appears with the Cairo case that there is no reason for this dismissal, at least given in the article, rather than religious discrimination.

Religious Change

For this post, I am going to try to take a step back and look at what religious groups are doing to change and point out their own issues within their religions. It is true that I have been critical of religions as this is a blog meant to critically analyze them but it is also important to recognize that not all Christians are a homogeneous group, nor are all Muslims or Jews. While I do not understand fully how (and here I am focusing on Christianity because that is what I am most aware of) Christian sects can interpret the Bible differently, when there are passages saying it cannot be interpreted, and still claim divine power connected to it when it is humans openly admitting to controlling what beliefs to follow and such, I still think it is important to acknowledge that some changes have been made to better fit with rights of equality. These churches, such as the United Church, recognize gay marriage and allow women to lead as well as men, do not say that by doing so their right to religion is being impeded. It is definitely worth checking out the United Church website at http://www.united-church.ca/ and I have quoted them on their views of abortion. I am compiling a list of other religious groups which openly come out and say they feel they can be true to their religion yet question their church to better respect equality and other rights.

Catholics for Choice is a group which tries to separate itself from specific teachings of the Vatican, specifically on abortion. I do not know what their view on homosexuality is or on women working in the Church but that is probably worth an investigation.

See Change : "We believe that the Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic church, should participate in the UN in the same way as the world's other religions do—as a non-governmental organization."

Condoms 4 Life :"Condoms4Life is an unprecedented worldwide public education effort to raise public awareness about the devastating effect of the bishops’ ban on condoms. The campaign was launched on World AIDS Day 2001 with the display of billboards and ads in subways and newspapers saying, “Banning Condoms Kills.”" This group also does not discriminate against homosexuals and says that consensual sex between people not married happens and is not immoral. They add that even to those who feel sex must be shared only between married couples, sexual education and condom use must exist and not be prohibited.

I will keep another list of links for this subject.

Michael Valpy's "Seismic Tremors: Religion and the Law"

Getting back to a relevant issue to Canadians and religion, I turn once again to the collection of essays in Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada. This essay is Michael Valpy's "Seismic Tremors: Religion and the Law" and he expands upon Janice Gross Stein's "Searching for Equality" which focuses mostly on women's rights (or more specifically, the lack thereof) in traditional religions. He questions how we, as Canadians, must solve conflicts between religious rights and equality rights and discusses how these often conflict with one another. Before discussing the main issues he states: "I do not want a Canada that turns its back on multiculturalism" (p. 123) making it clear that he is not against multiculturalism or individuals' rights to it, but then brings up issues associated with this as well. He discusses the statistics in Canada relating to religion (only about 20% of the population regularily attend religious services while 85% claim to follow a specific religion) and how these figures fail in properly portraying a the increase in religious orthodoxy. British writer, Karen Armstrong, interviewed by The Globe and Mail, says that this religious fundamentalism exists as a "natural byproduct of a secular liberal society" and that "In particular... the emancipation of women has fuelled fundamentalism in all major religions, and Christianity has been 'the worst religion in the world for integrating sexuality and gender with the sacred'" (pg. 126-127). (I am quoting, I don't know what evidence she gives of this and that might be worth looking into, comparing Christianity to Islam and Judaeaism in their treatment of homosexuals and women). Valpry then brings up a series of recent religious incidents in Quebec. These include a Montreal YMCA frosting windows in a workout area so Muslim girls can exercise without men seeing them in their exercise gear, as well as a mix-up in pool schedules where there was a Muslim female swim class at the same time as a children's swim lesson which parents regularily watch but the fathers were forced out at the Muslim women's demands. At another community centre, he writes, men had to leave their partners in a prenatal class because a Muslim woman objected to their presence, and then also includes an incident where an Orthodox Jew, because of claims he needed to be home for the Sabbath, was allowed to cut in front of already waiting patients to see a doctor (pg. 128).

I do understand, especially in a country which supports multiculturalism, by bringing up such issues there is a need to exercise caution in my wording so that there is no mistaking criticism of specific incidences for an objecion to multiculturalism as a whole. The frosting of windows, to me, seems like a fair and not an unreasonable compromise as I am sure there are many women, not just Muslims or for religious reasons, who prefer privacy from men in a workout room. However, to look at this in the reverse if there was a request for a seperate men's gym this would be dismissed as being sexist, no? Same goes for the swimming lesson. If the women were promised a specific pool time away from the eyes of men, I understand how the gym would feel a need to honour this promise, but also how did the fathers feel being told that because they were born with a penis they could not watch their sons and daughters' swim lessons? If it were the mothers who were kicked out, there would have been protests against sexual discrimination. As for the prenatal classes, please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not important for the father or partner to also know what to expect? I am not sure what prenatal classes include but I am sure I can safely guess they focus primarily on the actual birth, which more men are choosing to be present for and assist with at least emotional support, as well as perhaps care for the newborn. With more women working today, men are also expected to help care for the child and should know what to expect and how to properly care for their child. I wonder if the community centre then offered men-only classes? I realize a male-only prenatal class may sound absurd but I think it would be interesting to see if the community centre offered any compensation for this. Perhaps too it could have offered a seperate class which was intended only for females at another time, but this too is problematic as it is still discrimination and also could take up more the centre's funding paying an instructor for the additional time, as well as maybe interferring with other events that would otherwise be taking place in that room. As for the case at the doctors office... was the same consideration given to patients who said they needed to pick their child up at a specific time, or make it to a meeting, or go grocery shopping before the store closed?

I have just added a new selection to the Suggested Books list but I must admit I have not read it or been able to find a copy of it as of yet. This book is Sumbul Ali-Karama's The Muslim Next Door: The Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing, recommended by Muslimah Media Watch (click here for the link to the article). I have not read it yet but the website I found this article on is critical of their own religion (these articles are written by Muslim women) and are also wary of how this religion is portrayed. Another article I found was reviewing another book which supposedly stated there is nothing sexist in the Qur'an and the reviewer immediately dismissed this notion. I state this as opening, only because I know very little specific details about this religion and know that I should not just take anything posted online as fact. Also obviously the review I found is written by someone religious but it must be noted that the majority of the site is critical of it. Anyways, I just thought I would include this because even though this blog is meant to critically analyze religion, it is still important to look at some other arguments. I do not mean to say this one book changes my mind on religion nor does it all of a sudden, in my opinion, justify the sexist passages in the Quar'an (which even the author takes issue with), but I think it is worth a look, as well as does the rest of the site I've linked to.

A quick summary of the book, quoted from the review:

"This book is basically what you wish you can give to those people who ask you all those questions that you have to answer over and over again. Now you can just hand them this book and trust that it’ll answer their questions.

Ali-Karamali doesn’t shy away from difficult questions, or gloss over them. She splits up her book into 11 chapters, and tackles the issues the media loves to talk about (veiling, stoning, jihad etc). She takes the major misconceptions about Islam and deconstructs them into base elements before explaining them.

The first half of the book introduces Islam to the non-Muslim reader and delves into more detail as the book progresses. The second half tackles the meaty topics: women in Islam, jihad and fundamentalism, stealing and adultery in Islam, American Muslim reactions to 9/11 and a concluding chapter on why misconceptions persist."

If I can get ahold of this book, I promise my own personal review when I read it.

For this post, I am going to diverge from my main points to hopefully answer a question posed by Chris. He says, "Can we hope to have any ethics or morality based in something other than various religious teachings? Even though I'm an atheist, my sense of what is right and wrong were confirmed by a somewhat Christian childhood..." For this, I am going to rely on the writings of Christopher Hitchens. This particular selection comes from his book, god is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything (published by McClelland & Stewart Ltd in 2007).

"The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case. Very well, they seem to say, we cease to insist on the Exodus (say), or the Virgin Birth or even the Resurrection, or the 'night flight' from Mecca to Jerusalem. But where would people be without faith? Would they not abandon themselves to every kind of license and selfishness? Is it not true, as G.K. Chesterton once famously said, that if people cease to believe in god, they do not believe in nothing but in everything?

The first thing to be said is that virtuous behavior by a believer is no proof at all of - indeed is not even an argument for - the truth of his belief. I might, just for the sake of argument, act more charitably if I believed that Lord Buddha was born from a slit in his mother's side. But would not this make my charitable impulse dependent upon something rather tenuous? By the same token, I do not say that if I catch a Buddhist priest stealing all the offerings left by the simple folk at his temple, Buddhism is thereby discredited. And we forget in any case how contingent all this is. Of the thousands of possible desert religions there were, as with the millions of potential species there were, one branch happened to take root and grow. Passing through its Jewish mutations to its Christian form, it was eventually adopted by the Emperor Constantine, and made into an official faith with - eventually - a codified and enforceable form of its many chaotic and contradictory books. As for Islam, it became the ideology of a highly successful conquest that was adopted by successful ruling dynasties, codified and set down in turn, and promulgated as the law of the land. One or two military victories the other way - as with Lincoln at Antietam - and we in the West would not be the hostages of village disputes that took place in Judaea and Arabia before any serious records were kept. We could have become the votaries of another belief altogether - perhaps a Hindu or an Aztec or a Confucian one - in which case we should still be told that, strictly true or not, it nonetheless helped teach the children the difference between right and wrong. In other words, to believe in a god is in one way to express a willingness to believe in anything. Whereas to reject the belief is by no means to profess belief in nothing." (pp. 184-185)

He continues...

"An even more graphic example is afforded by the case of Rwanda, which in 1992 gave the world a new synonym for genocide and sadism. This former Belgian possession is the most Christian country in Africa, boasting the highest percentage of churches per head of population, with 65 percent of Rwandans professing Roman Catholicism and another 15 percent adhering to various Protestant sects. The words 'per head' took on a macabre ring in 1992, when at a given signal the racist militias of 'Hutu Power,' incited by state and church, fell upon their Tutsi neighbors and slaughtered them en masse." (190)

Here he does not mean to state that because the Church was in Rwanda, that the Church is necessarily evil, rather that a religious presence does not mean there is a purely ethical and moral community. Just as he says one corrupt Buddhist priest does not discredit the entire religion, this does not discredit Christianity as a whole. It does however discredit the notion that religion, and only religion, means ethics and kindness.

Let me make myself clear...

I feel I must reiterate or make clear my points that I have not yet made perfectly clear to some. I DO NOT hate or wish to incite hatred towards anyone, whether they be religious or not. I DO NOT anywhere claim to be unbiased and uncritical, so therefore it should not be a shock to anyone reading this blog that I have a certain view. I find it problematic that religion, on the basis of being religion so often is placed above national and legal authority. So far one of the best texts I have found relating this problem in a Canadian context is Uneasy Partners: Canada and Multiculturalism. The first writer, Janice Gross Stein, admits to being a Jew but still finds problems with her own synagogue which systematically discriminates against women. She says that most religious institutions are considered "private" and as such are not subject to the Rights and Freedoms which are guaranteed to ALL Canadian citizens. She then points out, however, that most religious establishments do not need to pay property tax and also receive charity status for tax purposes. Therefore, while one could argue that the place is funded by the public, one could also say that they are able to so easily receive funding because the people donating receive compensation from the government, and therefore the institution is not so private.

It is obvious what my views are on religion but please note I am not making any statements about the existence of any god or gods; I do not claim to be all-knowing about existential matters, I merely want to point out human issues that are obvious to anyone looking at these religions critically. Institutions that force women to sit at the back of a room, or exclude them from a job on the basis of being female are considered discriminatory and should be considered so without exception.

Here are my main issues:

- Catholic schools are funded by the government in Ontario (one of the few, if only, Canadian provinces with this benefit)... Why should this be allowed?
- Many religions discriminate against women, gays, and even people of other religions, and are allowed to do this on the basis of freedom of religion. I do not believe that freedom of religion should be taken away, but rather equality freedoms be placed above it.
- Many religious institutions are exempt from certain taxes and can even receive charity status to more easily fund themselves. I do not deny that many religious groups are part of charities which benefit people in Canada and around the world, but I also feel this is an insult to humanity that we must claim we need religion to do "good." I also acknowledge that many of these institutes function as community centres, but other community centres which do not claim religious affiliation do not get to benefit also from this privilege.
- While we are guaranteed freedom of religion, the very document this comes from states there is some form of a god. I do not wish this to be changed to "there is no god", but rather omit this mention or tie it back to a more humanist and earthly inspiration.
- I also wish to bring to light the fact that there are many horrific (and I do use that word purposely despite the suggestion I avoid opinionated adjectives, because this is my opinion) passages in the Christian Bible. Such passages include the stoning of rape victims, the stoning of disobedient sons, the "dashing" of babies' heads against rocks, to just name a few. Obviously and with good reason, from what I can see, Canadian Christian churches today do not follow such laws, yet claim they must follow the other sexist and homophobic laws because the Bible is "divinely inspired". If human reason can oppose the examples I gave, to the extent that the Church no longer preaches them, why then cannot it be applied to other laws as well?

I will repeat: I am not arguing for forced atheism or punishment for belief, but rather an emphasis of value on equality rights. There are too many times where hate speech is tolerated against homosexuals because it is the "Church" saying it. There are too many times where women are denied jobs within their own church, synagogue or mosque because of the religion. It is problematic that many religious "values" contradict rights and freedoms.

Perhaps I went a bit off topic with the last post so let me please tie it into the issues. I will admit I wrote it on very little sleep and should have put it through an editing process. I did not realize that people reading my blog would be shocked that I have an opinion and am not approaching this completely unbiased. Nowhere do I claim this virtue. I was expressing an opinion. It was not a xenophobic or hateful opinion against the women fighting UPS; I was upset that once again, religion seems to trump other laws on the basis of being religion. It seemed rather hypocritical that these women were claiming they were discriminated against for being female, when their very religion does this. I do not mean that UPS has a right to be sexist, not at all.

Once again, I do not hate religious people, nor do I wish to incite hatred against them. The goal of this blog is to bring up events and concepts which I (I personally, I with an opinion) find problem with. Nowhere do I claim to hold divine power or to be all-knowing. I am a concerned citizen, that is all. I am not naive enough to actually believe that my opinion is the only "right" one, or the only one for that matter. I truly do appreciate feedback, but it also saddens me what some people are taking away from what I am saying.

UPS and Discrimination?

"UPS dress code case settled: 8 Muslim women claimed discrimination in firing"
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/538235

I found this article and decided to post it since most of my research has been on Christianity. Basically, there are 8 devout Muslim women claiming they were fired from UPS on the basis of religious and gender discrimination. They refused to hike their dresses above their knees for safety reasons (i.e. climbing up ladders 6 metres high) and UPS claims this could have resulted in injuries and accidents. At this point, apparently the sides have reached an agreement but it is yet to be published.

There are plenty of women employed by UPS today and they are not claiming they are victims of gender discrimination. It is the women's choice to follow these strict guidelines of their religion. I do understand that it is also a culture thing so they could possibly face discrimination at home, but they are choosing to remain there and choosing to follow the rules even at work. UPS did not fire them because they were Muslim, but because they wore unsafe clothing at work. I do not think it right that, if this is a valid concern, that these women believe themselves to be above safety regulations. If any other female (or male) were to wear long dresses, whether they were Muslim or not, they would face the same problem. If they were to fall off the ladders and become injured, they could possibly sue UPS or be out of work for awhile and still receive injury pay. There is no reason why UPS should have consented to this, if it is a valid safety concern.

This article also brings up another problematic issue, which is the charitable status bestowed on most religious institutions. This means that the institution is able to raise money easier through the public and claim to be funded by its followers rather than the government, and therefore argue it is private and can follow religious laws rather than actual Canadian laws against discrimination. This specific mosque which these women attend issues slurs on Jews and still has this charitable status. Furthermore, the majority of mosques demand that women be seperated from the men and continue to discriminate against women. The clothing is only one example of this. Women cannot be imams in traditional mosques and until recently (in some more liberal mosques) women cannot lead prayer to a group of mixed gender or men. These women should be suing their mosque for gender discrimination, not UPS.

Freedom from Religion?

In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it is clearly stated that everyone is guaranteed "freedom of conscience and religion"(2b). However, it also states at the very beginning "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." While this does not mean it must be the Christian god or the Jewish god or the Muslim god, it does mean that these laws are based on the fact that some singular god does exist. We are given freedom of religion, but we are also given freedom of conscience which can mean abstaining from religion too. I found an interesting group called Freedom from Religion which claims that not only is it important that we have the right to choose religion, we must also have the right to be separate from religion and not forced into it. This would mean removing the opening statement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The freedom of religion would remain but those of us who wish to abstain from it do not need to "recognize the supremacy of God".

"God" is also found in the Canadian anthem. So often in school they make children singing a mismatched bilingual version, never telling the students that the French one is not at all a translation of the English one. Therefore, when you switch between the French and English one, you are actually singing two very different things. The French version translates into this:

O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.

Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.

(Taken from: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm#a8)

Not only does this mean children could be singing about being willing to go to war for their country at the age of 7 (or however young they are when they first sing it), it also makes them state they are willing to carry the cross. This is referencing directly the Christian faith so even those of other religion, not just atheists and agnostics, should be concerned.

Important to Note

I feel it very important to stress the fact that this blog is not intended to incite hatred or violence against current people involved in religious groups. I have some friends who are religious and I do not hate them for their beliefs, and there are many kind people involved in religious groups. What I have a problem with is the way in which religion holds so much power today in society, on the belief that it is god-inspired and therefore above regular law, such as churches denying people their equal rights at marriage, not having to pay taxes, requiring separate schools, and so on. Furthermore, the churches which are more liberal (such as the United Church), while I am very happy that they are changing to be less oppressive, I must laugh at such attempts to change with the times as it is a sign that the religion is very much one that is created and established by humans alone, and not some divine almighty creator. How can the church claim to be based off of the Bible if they can pick and choose which beliefs to follow? Either way they are still connected to something that is very racist and sexist, and are not needed.

There are many Christian groups which are around the world trying to help those in need in developing countries. This is not a "point" for Christianity but for humanity. There are also many groups doing the same thing without dragging along Bibles with them. To be an atheist is not to be without morals. Christianity did not invent morals such as not killing or stealing; these existed long before, and even still are not carried out by all Christians today. This is not to say that all atheists are moral people, but I do not think it right that Christianity become a synonym for morality and good.

One more point, as I previously stated, this blog is not intended to be attack against Christianity alone but rather a critique of all established religions/cult which claim to have been inspired by god or some other mythical being. Christianity is one of the more popular religions in North America and the one which I am most familiar with, so the majority of the posts will be dealing with that religion. However, I sincerely do not mean for this to be used by other religions to attack Christianity and to claim superiority over it, because all religions err in the similar ways, as they are all *human*

The Vatican and the Christian Family

I found this article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/06/world/main1687068.shtml) on the CBS News website summarizing a document released by the Vatican in June 2006 declaring that "Family is under attack" due to gay marriage, birth control, and artificial insemination. I have never understood why the Vatican has such an obsession with sex (read the Vatican's Declaration on Sexual Ethics for a laugh) perhaps it is because no one in the administration is supposed to be having any sex that they feel the need to talk about it incessantly. I also have never understood how two men or two women being happy together can represent such a threat to the Vatican. Either way, no pope or cardinal has any right to declare that these are the reasons that the traditional family is being "destroyed". In the New Testament, Jesus takes full responsibility for this (capitalized words are how they are found in the text):

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:34-37)

What traditional family is the Pontifical Council for the Family discussing then? How can they argue that the modern world is destroying the family, when their supposed leader claims that to love him or god requires sacrificing the family?

Change of Venue

This blog is now reorienting its focus on the larger issues of religion. Religion is undeniably man-made (and I do mean "male" most often), and as such is subject to horrible human error and prejudices. I do not mean to direct attention to any one religion, however as Christianity is more the dominant religion in Canada (including its various sects and divisions) it will most likely receive more criticism than others. This is not really too far a stretch from the initial topic, as it is religion that provides most of the outcry against abortion, and from what I've observed it is in the terms of religion that information on the subject is manipulated.

Anti-Abortion Protest

So today was the first Sunday of October so it was the "Life Chain" where religious groups go out and stand by a main road with their generic photocopied signs stating "Abortion hurts women" and "Abortion kills babies." My main issue with this was inescapable this year because of course the person protesting in front of my house had her 3 year old daughter with her. I asked some of the people protesting what their opinion on having children at the protest was. For the most part these people were very kind and easy to talk to (minus the one man in a lawn chair muttering "not even jesus will save your soul") but none really presented any original ideas. As for their opinions on children at the protests, many admitted to having their children there or in past years, and one said the only reason her younger children weren't there was because there wasn't enough room in the van because she took her older children and their friends with them. One said that her four year old granddaughter "knows" what abortion is, that it means "the mommy has a baby growing in her tummy and that she has decided to kill it." I asked if the granddaughter was curious as to why some women would seek this option, and she said that the question hadn't been raised but when it is in the future, she would inform her granddaughter that "sometimes a girl isn't ready for a baby, but that it is important to know that she can go through with the pregnancy and give the baby to someone who really wants it." Both this grandmother and a young mother agreed that young children cannot fully grasp the concept but should be informed of "Christ's love for the unborn."

When I asked why they were out protesting today I got varied but similar answers. One woman said she was there to "bear witness to christ." Another said to "spread Jesus's love" and another said "to inform." I asked one woman why she agreed with her sign, "Abortion hurts women" and she said that she feels some women seek abortions without knowing their full options and are hurt afterwards.

What was most interesting, was the students' responses, which ranged from indifference to anger. One house held a sign saying "Pro-CHoice" since the protestors were standing directly in front of the house. I was told though that the sign in it's entirety said "Pro-Choice...Bitches" so it may not have been taken seriously. A lot of cars drove by and honked, but these could have been honks of approval or anger. There were many who shouted out windows at these protesters telling them to go away. Most of those with signs ignored this and kept smiles on their faces. I wanted to place a "Pro-Choice" sign in my window but I couldn't find a marker, and was also in a rush to work or I would have spent much more time talking to them, and also to the students in obvious disagreement.

One thing that went across my mind was how I wanted to tell the protesters to get off my lawn because while I agree with their right to protest, I don't want it to seem anyone living on this property agrees with their opinion. However, the person sitting on my lawn was a girl no older than 5 with her mom, holding a sign saying "Abortion kills babies". How could I accuse a 5 yr old of trespassing? But if you think of it this way - her mother obviously thinks she is old enough to comprehend abortion and hold a fully developed opinion on it, like any other activist she must be ready to deal with the consequences. Not that it really needs to be said, but I did not even attempt to press charges but it was an interesting idea nonetheless.

London Birthright

I started trying to contact various organizations today to get some different opinions, as well as to gain some knowledge on the different options out there. I thought that since most churches operate on Sundays that today would be a good day to talk to the church leaders and organizers. However, when I showed up at the United Church this afternoon all the doors were locked. I originally planned to show up for the service at 10:30 and then talk to the pastor/priest afterwards. However, I know from when I have gone to church with my grandparents that the pastor is normally occupied with congregants questions and discussions afterwards and I did not feel it right to take up his/her time being a first time visitor. I guess I waited too long though, and will have to try during the week.

Since I could not talk to anyone in person today, I decided to start some research and what I found today is actually very upsetting. I typed in “London Ontario + abortion” for Google, and the first link to show was for Birthright (www.birthright.org). The website advertises this group’s services as “We are here to help you in making a decision about your pregnancy” and “We want you to know the many options available to you.” They also claim to offer “Non-judgmental and caring advice.” The website also says “Birthright is a fully independent organization, not affiliated with any church or public agency.” All this sounds really good as they offer a 24 hour helpline for pregnant girls. HOWEVER, when I called the helpline and made sure to immediately inform the woman that I was not in crisis and did not want to tie up a line that someone else may need, I asked if there was another line I could call for some answers for an assignment, the woman gave me the number to a Right to Life clinic.

Right to Life (http://www.right2life.ca/) is an organization devoted to criminalizing abortion and is the group that organizes the "Life Chain" which is the anti-abortion protesters. Maybe, I am missing something, but if a group claims to not be affilatted with any church or public agency, how can they give me this number?? Furthermore, when you look into the Birthright website, under services they provide, it quickly becomes obvious which way their counsellors are likely to push these girls towards. They provide "maternity and baby clothes", as well as information on "prenatal development", "adoption", and "pregnancy and childbirth." Nowhere is abortion even mentioned on this website.

Catholics for Choice

I came across this website tonight: http://www.catholicsforchoice.ca/

I find it very interesting.. one of the main issues I have with the anti-abortion movement is their means of protesting. I believe that it is every person's right to make their opinion heard but I don't agree with these protesters using their young children to hold sign like "abortion kills babies" when I seriously doubt these three year olds have formed their own well-informed decision on the topic. Every time I see this I want to ask one of the kids if they know what abortion truly is and why some women seek them. Maybe I am generalizing but I cannot see each one of these parents sitting their toddlers down and explaining to them this situation.

This group I found includes this in their "about us" section:

"The Toronto Catholic District School Board, following the Vatican's lead, has decided to end support to UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund) at Halloween. Instead of allowing trick-or-treating children to carry UNICEF boxes, the Toronto Catholic School Board agreed to allow the children to carry boxes to collect money for "Aid to Women". CFFC-Canada denounced this move, and exposed "Aid to Women" as an anti-abortion group whose members harass and intimidate girls and women who try to enter a legal abortion clinic in downtown Toronto. The name "Aid to Women" is misleading and without the information provided by CFFC-Canada, people donating at Halloween may have thought that the money was to go to a women's shelter. Indeed many principals and teachers at Catholic elementary schools were of the same mistaken belief."


I'm glad that there are people willing to speak out against the main beliefs held by their religion, even when coming from the top (i.e. the Vatican). It is important for me to remember while I work on this project not to see people only as the group they belong to and to know that not everyone in a group shares the uniform ideas. I have to admit though that I am a little skeptical of a Catholic group being fully pro-choice but from what I have seen on this website it seems to be a good and interesting step forward for the church, even if it is just a select few from such a large and conservative religion.

Abortion in the News

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080930.ELECTIONABORTION30/TPStory/?query=abortion

So with time in between classes, I decided to look up what there is recently in the news about abortion. Just today, an article was in the Globe and Mail about Stephen Harper promising not to reopen the abortion debate if he is re-elected. "He said then that he would not introduce legislation amending the abortion law but that Conservative MPs had a right to their own beliefs, leaving the door open for private member's bills." His spokesperson, Kory Teneycke, adds to this: "We can't prevent private member's bills from reaching the floor...But the government would not support them."

http://www.thestar.com/article/508645

The Toronto Star goes into more detail on this matter, including the fact that Harper wants the bill proposed by Ken Epp, The Unborn Victims of Crime Act to be rewritten. What this entails, I am not sure, but it is important to note that while Harper says he does not wish to pass anything affecting the abortion laws, he wants this one rewritten but not scrapped all together. For those who don't know, a basic summary of this bill is that it is intended to protect the unborn in crimes, so that those who murder a pregnant woman are charged with 2 counts of murder. When I read up on this, it seems that both counts of murder would be served together so I don't understand what the point of this is. There is a clause that states it would not affect abortion laws, but once the "unborn" is considered a person who can be murdered, how can the abortion laws stand?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=849260

The National Post has a lot less optimistic view on this as it's article on this topic is called "Abortion ban in Tory plan." In this article, Gilles Duceppe states that he believes the Conservatives will try to criminalize abortion on the basis of Epp's bill. In this full article, only one line is given to state Harper's stance: "During an Ottawa news conference yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his government has no plans to reopen the abortion debate or change Canada's abortion laws."

United Church of Canada

I found this on the official United Church of Canada website: http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/poli

cies/1980/c511

2. Abortion

1. We affirm the inherent value of human life, both as immature in the foetus and as expressed in the life of the mother and related persons. The foetus is a unique though immature form of human life and, as such, has inherent value. Christians should witness to that value by stressing that abortion is always a moral issue and can only be accepted as the lesser of two evils. Therefore, abortion is acceptable only when, after careful consideration, the medical, social, and/or economic situation makes it the most responsible alternative.
2. The previous law, which required a hospital therapeutic abortion committee to authorize an abortion was unjust in principle and unworkable in practice.
3. We do not support "abortion on demand." We believe that abortion should be a personal matter between a woman and her doctor, who should earnestly consider their understanding of the particular situation permitting the woman to bring to bear her moral and religious insights into human life in reaching a decision through a free and responsive exercise of her conscience

They also include this:

1. Massive Contraception Program

1. A child has a right to be wanted, so that it may have some assurance of this essential element in human development. Bringing unwanted children into the world is irresponsible.
2. Thus, family planning, including vasectomy and tubal ligation is Christian duty. Our Canadian society has to make every effort to ensure that contraception is the only completely acceptable form of birth control. Some practice of abortion is inevitable for the next few years while contraceptive techniques are imperfect and contraceptive ignorance is widespread, but the aim of all education, research and social pressure must be always to reduce the incidence of abortion and to promote effective contraception.
3. To anticipate the use of abortion as a form of birth control and therefore neglect to practise contraception is medically and morally deplorable and socially expensive. Such intentional use of abortion by individuals or governments is morally wrong.

That was from 1980 and they have expanded on the idea of the importance of sexual education in a more recent edict/declaration in 1990: http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1990/a111

"WHEREAS prevention of abortion is best accomplished by the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, the aim of education, research and social action must always be to promote effective contraception and thus reduce the incidence of abortion;"

I think it's amazing that a religious group is able to step forward and say that even though they don't necessarily agree with abortion but understand that they cannot judge every situation or declare it absolutely evil. However, rather than just saying "yes, go ahead with the abortion" they are stressing the importance on sexual education so then contraceptives can be used more effectively. They even include the fact that they want better access to abortion clinics in Canada:

"WHEREAS many provinces have a high incidence of teenage pregnancy and Saskatchewan has one of the highest;

WHEREAS accessibility to abortion is inadequate in certain geographical areas in Canada as evidenced by:

• Prince Edward Island provides no access to abortion services;
• Newfoundland: one doctor in St. John's performs abortions;
• New Brunswick: no services north of Moncton;
• Nova Scotia: one Halifax hospital performs over 80 per cent of abortions;
• Quebec: 70-80 per cent of abortions are done in Montreal;
• Ontario: access concentrated in the southern cities;
• Manitoba: services available primarily in Winnipeg;
• Saskatchewan: women outside Saskatoon have little chance to obtain abortions;
• Alberta: abortions done in Edmonton, a few in Calgary, and fewer still in Lethbridge;
• British Columbia: situation precarious because of anti-abortionists elected to hospital boards; and

WHEREAS abortion is a medical act and the provinces are required to provide medical services according to federal standards of comprehensiveness and availability; and

WHEREAS under the Canada Health Act, the federal government can withhold health transfer payments from provinces which fail to provide medical services on a comprehensive, accessible, universal basis:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 33rd General Council:

1. urge the Government of Canada under the Canada Health Act to monitor the provinces' provision of contraception and abortion services in the light of federal adequacy standards of comprehensiveness and availability; and if found inadequate to pressure the provincial governments to bring these services up to Canada Health Act standards;
2. urge all conferences to request their provincial governments to provide adequate contraceptive and abortion education, counselling and services; and to report on their actions and results to the 34th General Council"

Not only are they acknowledging freedom of choice, they are trying to make a difference in how the government regulates abortion as well and are asking for more involvement to better provide this service to Canadian girls. I do not agree with government and religion mixing but I think this way, the United Church can be seen like any other activist or lobby group, not fighting for Church rights, but for women's rights.

abortion = lynching and holocaust??

Something that really upsets is how different "pro-life" groups attempt to scare people away from abortions by associating it with horrible events in history where large groups of people were killed. I just came across one on the Pregnant Pause website: http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/lynch.htm
This group compares the number of lynchings from 1882 to 1968 (3446) to the number of abortions chosen by African-Americans from 1973 to 1994 (approx. 10,000,000). This is an insult to those who were violently murdered because of racism and also to these women who have chosen to abort for various reasons. In one of my classes this semester we had to look at images of lynchings that happened in the 20th century in the South. Painful to look at, these were clearly crimes of violence and hatred with the intent to oppress and destroy an entire group of human beings who had lives and families of their own. Comparing a lynching to an abortion is disgusting. Although I cannot claim that all abortions are chosen for reasons that all could agree are "legitimate", abortion clinics do not exist to wipe out an entire group within a population out of hatred and ignorance. However, I do know that there were eugenics movements when birth control was becoming popular in the States to sterilize African Americans and I think this is an atrocity. It is not right though to claim that abortions today have anything to do with a racist movement. One very important fact that is being left out is that these African-American fetus which are aborted are happening because the woman (who is most likely African-American, unless this is just from the father's side) chose to do so. Lynchings happened to African-Americans by ignorant white southern people. Clearly the second is one group doing violence against another, and the first is a conscious decision, not to wipe out one's own group.

A more common comparison is to the Holocaust, which is equally disgusting. On the London, Ontario Right 2 Life website (http://www.right2life.ca/aboutus_aims.shtml) under "Our Aims and Objectives" there is a quote from John Mallon. "Why should the slaughter of six million Jews and countless others qualify as genocide but not the slaughter of 45 million unborn children?" According to John Mallon's personal website (http://www.johnmallon.net/) he has been a Catholic writer for the last 25 years. I can see how he makes the comparison, if you go with the belief that the moment the sperm meets the egg there is a human being. He is claiming that neither the fetus nor the Jews were able to defend themselves and were subjected to another's desire to kill them. However, these people who were killed in the Holocaust were living and breathing human beings with their own lives, their own dreams, their own ideas, and family and loved ones. They were tortured in numerable and horrifying ways. They were targeted for being Jews. There are numerous reasons why women seek abortions but to wipe out an entire group such as the Jewish community is not one of them. This is an insult to the memory of those killed in Death Camps, as well as to the women and doctors who have made the decision to abort. Mallon seems to think that every person who chooses or assists in abortion is another Hitler, capable of killing millions of conscious human beings. How can people even make this comparison?!