Religion

Taken from: https://gdb.voanews.com/5F968AFE-CBEF-46EB-8497-5569891B9097_cx0_cy10_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpg

A few weeks ago, something terrible and yet necessary began. Iranians took to the streets in several cities to protest a corrupt and tyrannical regime. This is the largest public show of discontent in Iran since the 2009 Green Movement in which thousands of people risked their lives to protest the outcome of their presidential elections. Now, as the protests grow and tensions in Tehran continue to build, it is of the utmost importance that the U.S. adopt a policy that simultaneously benefits American interests in the Middle East while seeking to further the success of the protest movement and assure that lives already lost not be lost in vain.

While some may call for firm and explicit action from Washington—such as sanctions or intervention—I hold that such an undertaking would be harmful to the movement’s potential for success. Rather, due to a history of backfiring rhetoric between the U.S. and Tehran, an existing regional power struggle in the Middle East, and the ease by which American actions could be misinterpreted and skewed for the benefit of the current Iranian regime, the United States must instead take advantage of the protests by adopting an approach of extreme caution.

Precedent

For decades Washington and Tehran have shared a bombastic rhetorical relationship with one another. One such example was President Bush’s 2002 declaration placing the Islamic Republic in an “Axis of Evil” alongside Iraq and North Korea. The aftermath of the statement was thousands of Iranians taking to the streets belting out, “Death to America”. This included many Iranians who indicated that they rarely engaged in such celebrations, but spoke of having joined the protests in order to show solidarity against the Great Satan—America. This single statement by a U.S. President is credited not only with having strengthened the anti-Western rhetoric of Iranian hardliners, but also with causing Iranian citizens of all stripes to rally around a common enemy: the U.S. Just as foreign attacks on U.S. soil cause an outpouring of patriotism no matter domestic approval of the current government, American accusations against Iranian transgressions are bound to have a similar effect. Therefore, just as in 2002, statements of support for the protests by the U.S. will be seen by Iranian nationals as unwanted, and perhaps abhorrent, meddling by a country that has nothing but its own interests in mind.

The Larger Context

In addition to historical tensions with Iran, the U.S. is also currently engaged in a geopolitical proxy war with Russia in the Middle East, the Syrian Civil War being the most significant manifestation of this Cold War-era clash. Saudi Arabia, backed by Washington, and Iran, with support from Moscow, struggle for dominance in the region while their superpower puppeteers pull strings behind the scenes. Thus, if the U.S. takes a strong and hawkish stance in Iran, Russia will feel it necessary to do the same. In fact, evidence of such a reaction from Moscow has already surfaced. In a recent United Nations Security Council discussion, the U.S. initiated a dialogue concerning the protests in Iran to which Russia immediately responded with objections and a call to halt the discussion on the grounds that “it would represent an inappropriate interference in Iran’s internal affairs.” As if Moscow’s protests were not enough, François Delattre, the French representative to the UN and typically an American ally, also explicitly diverged from the U.S.’s stance by stating, “However worrying the events of the last few days in Iran may be, they do not constitute per se a threat to international peace and security. We must be wary of any attempts to exploit this crisis for personal ends.” The United States’ official motive in bringing up the protests was unclear but, as is evident from the French representative’s statement, the international community—including both our European allies and Russia—is wary of the Trump administration’s current treatment of the protests and will react negatively to too much American interference.

Chess

The fact that the U.S. will use the opportunity presented by the protests to act exclusively for its own benefit is quite clear. Washington is playing a game of chess and Iran is another piece on the board. Combine this imperialistic image with our invasive history in the region as well as American support for the Saudis—whom Iranian state media is blaming for the protests—and a very sensitive situation emerges. It is easy to imagine an Iranian citizen still unsure of his resolve to put his life in danger by protesting a regime he does not support. It would not take much for him to believe that the U.S. is simply interfering to promote its interests, and not his own, thus deterring him from acting. It is therefore not difficult to understand the benefits Washington would reap from not taking an overt stance on the protests and instead letting them play out. President Trump would do well to learn from statements such as that of Emily Thornberry, a U.K. Labor Party politician, “Our approach now is one of extreme caution when it comes to Iran and a recognition that the society in Iran is an immensely complex one, and seemingly contradictory… For example, with these current riots, sometimes they are calling to reinstate the monarchy, sometimes they are calling out against [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei, sometimes they are calling for Khamenei, sometimes they are calling for the price of eggs…”

Conclusion

Given the historically tenuous rhetorical relationship between the U.S. and Iran, the current proxy war between the American-backed Saudis and Russian-backed Iranians, as well as the aversion to protests that Iranian citizens will feel from any direct American support, the U.S. should not take a formal stance on the protests in Iran. Rather, Washington should allow the state media to continue to condemn and threaten the protestors, driving them away from the regime. Any American action or presence will only serve to drive the protesters under Khamenei’s protective, anti-Western wing. As things stand, the people of Iran are becoming increasingly bold in their opposition to the repressive acts of Iran’s leadership. If Washington’s desired outcome is regime change, the existing divide between reformers and hardline traditionalists must widen significantly. To help make that happen, the U.S. must do what it is not used to doing in the Middle East: Stay out.

January 22, 2018 2 comments

Swedish police officers observe as refugees arrive at a tram station in Malmö, Sweden. Source

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Immigration Religion Society and Culture

A closer look at refugee integration in Europe (Part II)

written by Sarah Wyman

The first part of this article addresses integration policies in France and may be read in full here.

Sweden: A multicultural model

Sweden has struggled with sub-replacement fertility since millions of Swedes fled poverty and religious persecution during the great emigration, a wave of migration which endured between 1850 and 1939. The process of accepting and integrating refugee and immigrant populations in Sweden has therefore been a mutually-beneficial one. In exchange for asylum, refugees augment Sweden’s dwindling population of young laborers. As highlighted in a 2015 article about a hospital in Gävleborg where around 10% of doctors are refugees, their contribution has been significant.

Sweden is developing a reputation abroad for being particularly hospitable to immigrants and received over 160,000 individuals in 2015 alone. In many ways, Sweden’s response to the refugee crisis has been exemplary. The country has instituted a number of integration programs aimed at easing immigrants’ transitions into Swedish society by teaching them about Swedish culture and instructing them in the language. The government extends a multitude of benefits to refugees including welfare and housing. Progressive legislation demonstrates Sweden’s commitment to “diversity, multiculturalism, and international cooperation” and communicates to immigrant populations that their cultural traditions are welcome and valued by the Swedish population.

Despite these victories, Sweden too has experienced social turmoil as a result of immigration. According to an annual survey conducted by Gothenburg University this year, 53% of Swedes identify immigration and integration as the most pressing social issue facing their country, marking a nearly twofold increase from last year’s result of 27%. This rising concern is likely correlated to the dramatic increase in the volume of immigrants entering the country, many of whom Sweden is struggling to acommodate.

Like France, Sweden is home to a number of densely populated, urban, and largely immigrant-inhabited cities riddled with poverty and violence. For example, Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city—where 32% of the population is foreign-born (the national average hovers around 14%)—made international headlines last year for its sudden spike in violent crime, and the community remains unstable. Sverigedemokraterna, Sweden’s right-wing conservative party, is responding in full force with xenophobic rhetoric and anti-immigration policy.

However, contrary to what critics of immigration in Sweden are suggesting, the rise of violence in major metropolitan areas like Malmö is not evidence of the failure of multicultural integration programs. The fact that violence and crime perpetrated by immigrants occurs almost exclusively in isolated urban communities instead speaks to the success of integration programs operating in small villages. The meaningful, one-on-one interactions taking place in rural communities are simply less feasible in rapid-pace city environments where etiquette demands less from people to begin with.

Sweden would do well to implement the sort of one-on-one, community-led mentorship efforts which have been successful in smaller towns and cities in urban areas. In order to prevent the formation of socially isolated immigrant communities, genuine channels of communication between native and immigrant populations must be open from the start, and they must remain so throughout the integration process.

A European model for integration

When the EU begins—as it must—to design European guidelines for integration, it should consider the strengths and weaknesses of existing models. Like Sweden, it should encourage mentorship programs that allow native and non-native individuals to get to know one another. However, it also should improve the efficacy and reach of these programs by ensuring that they are successfully implemented in urban environments as well as villages. In the French vein, the EU must ensure that its legal systems are prepared to serve individuals of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds equally. However, it must also be wary of assimilationist policy and prepared to accept that the process of integration will involve reciprocal cultural exchange. If Europe fails to take these steps, poorly-integrated immigrant communities will continue to grow in size and scope and social isolation will increase accordingly.

Europe’s plan to redistribute refugees and asylum seekers proportionally across Europe is a good one. As the success of small-scale programs in Sweden has demonstrated, integration is most successful where the ratio of immigrants to native population is low enough to allow for meaningful interaction between the two groups. However, if, like in France, enough is not done to facilitate this sort of cross-cultural exchange in the first place, the EU’s redistribution plan will do little to resolve the social turmoil unleashed by the inundation of refugees into Europe and will further deteriorate inter-cultural relations moving forward.

The urgency of the refugee crisis demands an immediate response from Europe. However, it also presents an excellent opportunity for countries like France and Sweden to reconsider their models of integration, identify their weaknesses, and construct the foundation for societies richer in empathy and culture.

June 24, 2016 0 comment

A young boy plays in the abandoned complex where he lives with more than 135 other refugees in Toulouse, France. Source

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Immigration Religion Society and Culture

A closer look at refugee integration in Europe (Part I)

written by Sarah Wyman

In 2015, over 1.3 million people displaced by war and conflict sought asylum in Europe. Of this number, only 292,540 were refugees—individuals approved for asylum and guaranteed protection by the European Union (EU)—and one million were migrants—individuals who have not completed the legal process of claiming asylum. This massive wave of forced migration has proved a challenge for the EU, whose member states have responded with varying commitments to accepting displaced people. Thus far, Greece and Italy have borne the burden of processing applications for asylum, and the vast majority of refugees have settled in Germany, Hungary, and Sweden.

When David O’Sullivan, Ambassador of the European Union to the United States, spoke at UCLA earlier this month, he emphasized the need for a unified European response to the refugee crisis. According to O’Sullivan, the solution to what many Europeans perceive as an insurmountable problem is the proportionate redistribution of refugees and asylum seekers between the European member states. This perspective is the driving force behind recent EU legislation outlining redistribution procedures and controlling the safe and legal arrival of refugees by land and sea.

However, the EU has failed to address a third, equally necessary response to the refugee crisis: integration. Europe does not currently have an integration plan for the millions of people resettling across the continent, a fact which is made more disconcerting by Europe’s long history of unsuccessful immigrant integration.

Over the course of the past few decades, isolated and predominantly immigrant communities have become an increasingly common feature of European suburbs. One such community, Molenbeek St. Jean—the so-called “jihadi capital of Europe” in western Brussels—has been under scrutiny in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels. Five individuals involved in November’s Paris attacks were tied to the community, and it was implicated again during the investigation of the Brussels attacks in March. Molenbeek St. Jean and its association with a violent and poorly-integrated immigrant population represents a larger European problem: the social segregation of native and non-native populations.

While the refugee crisis differs from Europe’s tradition of immigration in many respects, the process of refugee integration will face many of the same challenges. Namely, in order for successful integration to take place, native and non-native communities must overcome the profound socio-cultural divides which separate them. There is no apparent answer for how to address this problem. However, there are lessons to be learned from legislation and policies already implemented by European nations.

Two particularly interesting targets for comparison are France and Sweden, which have adopted opposing methodologies with respect to immigration. France, commanding a clearly-defined and longstanding national identity, expects immigrants and refugees to assimilate to French culture and traditions. Meanwhile, the Swedish government has adopted a multicultural approach, incorporating the customs of refugees and immigrants into a broader Swedish identity. Neither strategy has been wholly successful in producing social harmony, and closer study reveals why: both models fail to produce organic social interaction between native and immigrant populations. Without this crucial ingredient, Europe will not arrive at a sustainable solution for the refugee crisis.

France: An assimilationist model

Any discussion about immigration in France must begin with the French tradition of laïcité. The term, which was coined during the French Revolution and ultimately formalized in a 1905 law, can be loosely summarized as an equivalent to the United States’ separation of church and state. However, its definition relies on a different set of principles which, in practice, render its implementation problematic on a social scale.

While the American tenet of separation of church and state seeks to protect freedom of religion and individual liberty, laïcité’s end goal is to achieve social equality by preventing religiously-motivated discrimination. It draws a sharp distinction between private and public life and decrees that while individuals are free to practice whichever religion they choose in their private life, religion shall in no capacity infringe on the public sphere. Unlike the separation of church and state in the United States—which seeks to grant equal religious liberty to all US citizens—laïcité promotes equality by preventing anyone from practicing their religion in the public sphere. The strategy here is to achieve equality by removing religion from the social equation. Laïcité privileges French identity over other cultural and religious identities so as to ensure that all French citizens are viewed as French first and foremost and that their status in the eyes of the law is protected from religious bias.

Laïcité achieved international controversy following a March 2004 law banning students from wearing symbols or clothing denoting religious affiliation in schools. Other laws apply this precedent to all public institutions, ranging from government offices to post offices. This legislation has proved particularly problematic for French Muslim women who wish to wear headscarves in accordance with their religious values, making laïcité’s incompatibility with current societal truths clear.

Laïcité is a system designed for a mono-cultural, Catholic—or Christian at best—French society. It was not conceived during a time in which multiculturalism was prevalent, nor has it evolved to match the needs of France’s diversifying population. Instead, it is reinforcing a narrow definition of French national identity which does not include the multi-faceted racial, cultural, and ethnic dimensions of modern France.

The ideology which shaped laïcité is a deeply-ingrained component of the French identity. Although its ramifications on the reception of immigrants in France are complex and far-reaching, they may be condensed broadly into two categories:

Firstly, the restrictive cultural norms imposed by laïcité make little room for immigrants’ diverse religions and cultures. While studying in France, I asked a French person I knew well to explain to me what one had to do to “be French” in modern France. His answer was simple: “you just have to obey our laws.” That’s precisely the problem. French laws, as they stand, are not feasible for segments of the population that don’t resemble the sort of French people they were designed for. This is especially true for France’s growing Muslim population, which continues to challenge France’s cultural norms. Most recently, a Muslim student in Northwestern France was sent home for wearing a long skirt—a choice which her school’s administration interpreted as a religious statement. There has also been controversy surrounding French schools’ refusal to serve Halal food in cafeterias. These incidents stand in sharp contrast to the norm of institutionalized Catholicism in France, where many schools hold mass daily and nearly all Roman Catholic holidays are observed by the French state.

However, those aspiring to earn the social status of citizen in France have no choice but to assimilate to French cultural and religious norms. This is made difficult by the popular disdain of many native French for immigrant communities, perpetuating a vicious circle of social isolation. The French are inclined to distrust and disapprove of growing immigrant neighborhoods like those in Seine-Saint-Denis and Marseilles because they perceive their failure to integrate as an affront to French tradition and hospitality rooted in immigrants’ lack of interest in integrating. This attitude contributes to the stigma which makes it difficult for immigrants and refugees to integrate in the first place, widening the social gap between these populations and attesting to the inefficacy of laïcité as a strategy for integration.

Secondly, because religion—and, by extension, religious and cultural differences—are taboo in France, relations between the ethnically French and the multicultural “new French” are plagued by a fundamental lack of mutual understanding. Lines of communication between these increasingly isolated populations are cut in part because their social spheres do not overlap, but also because dialogue about the issues which separate them is made uncomfortable by prevailing cultural norms.

France’s policies, built around the notion of laïcité, reinforce the ideological divide between native and non-native populations before they have an opportunity to interact. The sociocultural repercussions of this method have already posed a problem in ethnically-divided France, and the addition of hundreds of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers is likely to escalate existing tensions within France if efforts are not made to bridge these polarized communities.

The second part of this article details Swedish integration policy and proposes a model of integration for Europe. Visit The Generation website later this week to read more.

June 21, 2016 1 comment

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Immigration Internet Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Territorial disputes Terrorism Uncategorized

An Interview with Mubin Shaikh: Former Jihadist Turned Counter-Terrorism Operative

written by Madison Weil

In light of recent radical Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide, individuals everywhere are feeling uneasy and unsafe. The topic of national security has moved to the forefront of political agendas and has become an integral part of international discussions. In the United States, 49% of citizens are worried that they, or someone in their family, will become a victim of terrorism. This percentage is the highest it has been since the year following 9/11. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, “Over three-quarters of Americans doubt the nation’s ability to stop ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own.” Additionally, 59% of Republicans, 38% of Independents, and 15% of Democrats support a ban on all Muslims wishing to enter the United States. For a nation that prides itself on freedom and equal opportunity for all, these are surprising numbers, which reveal the success of radical extremists in their ability to create widespread fear and anti-Muslim sentiment.

In an effort to learn more about the goals and recruitment strategies of ISIS, a colleague and I recently interviewed Mubin Shaikh—an ex-extremist turned counter-terrorism operative, and author of the book Undercover Jihadi. Born in Canada, Shaikh was raised Muslim and became influenced by the radical ideas of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He began actively recruiting other young Muslims for the cause of jihad. After the events of 9/11, however, he questioned Islamic extremism and travelled to Syria, where he underwent deradicalization—a process he defines in his interview as “a full cognitive shift away from extremist thinking.” Upon his return home, he began working undercover with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the “Toronto 18” case, in an effort to prevent extremist attacks. Today, he works to stop radicalization using social media to directly engage Islamic State sympathizers, while also speaking out against Islamophobia, which he believes only fuels and encourages radicalization.

What many people do not understand is that the fulfillment of ISIS’ agenda is actually dependent upon worldwide discrimination against Muslims—all Muslims, even moderate, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. According to Shaikh, “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious how easily people are falling into that trap. ISIS has actually written a document in which they wrote and said ‘we will commit these attacks so as to create retaliation on Muslims to make them feel so isolated and marginalized that they will be pushed into our waiting arms.’”

Shaikh is referring to both a manifesto called “The Black Flags from Rome,” as well as the February edition of ISIS’ online magazine, Dabiq, in which the Islamic State warned, “Muslims in the West will soon find themselves between one of two choices.” This statement was published in the weeks following the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris—an abhorrent act that only heightened the pre-existing tension between French Muslims and their fellow citizens. The group boasted that the attack had “further [brought] division to the world,” and “eliminated the grayzone,” representing the coexistence between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors. The text further explains that Muslims living in the West will soon feel so isolated and marginalized, they will be forced to “either apostatize … or [migrate] to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” The term “crusader” is the title given by ISIS to every Western soldier, civilian, and politician, regardless of party or nation.

In the weeks following the most recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, ISIS has seen their goal come to fruition—innocent Muslims everywhere have been experiencing acts of violence, hatred, and discrimination at the hands of angry, fearful Western citizens. Many in the West believe that Islam is a religion that promotes violence, without understanding that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Shaikh explained that ISIS manipulates the Quran, “cherry-picks” verses, and uses phrases out of context in order to piece together an outline for their violent mission.

In a more recent interview with VICE, Shaikh reemphasizes that widespread Islamophobia provides a major advantage to ISIS recruiters: “The sad reality is, you have people on the right who might as well directly take the marching orders from ISIS because they’re doing the work for them.” ISIS targets individuals who feel isolated and rejected. Youths are an easy target given their desire to formulate their own identity and find a community to which they belong. Shaikh comments, “Your brains are still developing until your mid-twenties. That’s a time when you’re susceptible to influences from adults, community members, and religious members.” ISIS preys on the vulnerability of ostracized youths, reaching out to them via social media platforms such as Facebook, Skype, Twitter, Instagram, etc. “They’ll take screenshots and continue to engage you until they feel like they can successfully recruit you,” says Shaikh. He also solemnly discusses the impossibility of quitting ISIS once an individual has been recruited: “Their lives are destroyed. And it will be very, very difficult for them to leave that place. Some of them have been executed because they were creating ‘too many problems’ because they wanted to go home.”

While widespread fear and anger might seem inevitable in light of current events, Shaikh encourages individuals to educate themselves on the goals and strategies of extremists, and to resist the temptation to perpetuate the anti-Muslim sentiment which only further fuels radicalization and polarization.

December 28, 2015 1 comment

Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Humanitarian Aid Immigration Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Terrorism Uncategorized

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case

written by Madison Weil

“It is nationalism which endangers nations, and not the other way round.” –Ernest André Gellner (British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist)

French President Francois Hollande recently issued a statement that his country is prepared to open its borders and welcome 24,000 migrants seeking asylum over the next two years. This statement, issued on September 7, 2015, is part of a new plan designed by the European Union to accept and appropriately distribute the massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other surrounding nations. When asked to comment on French polls that indicated 55% of the national population was opposed to accepting more refugees, Hollande responded that asylum is a constitutional right and a moral duty, and that “France’s image and standing in the world were at stake.”

In light of the recent terrorists attacks on Paris, and amid reports that one of the attackers held a Syrian passport, Hollande has emphasized the necessity of making proper background checks prior to accepting these refugees. Hollande has declared war on ISIS, but made it clear that France will maintain its “humanitarian duty” and promise to welcome refugees over the next two years.

While many refugees initially identified Germany as the most ideal place to relocate with supposed security and job opportunities abound, other European countries are now offering comparable conditions and welcoming the migrants. In fact, because Germany has been accommodating such a massive influx of individuals in recent months, France has offered to help by offering an expedited asylum application to migrant families arriving in Munich: temporary housing in France along with a two-week approval process as opposed to the usual six-month process.

These recent political and cultural strides made by France are particularly notable given the nation’s sticky history with immigration and ethnic tension. Having just spent a month living and learning in France, I can attest that it is challenging to go more than a day without hearing an allegation that the presence of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and immigrants creates a grave problem for the nation. A commonly held belief among French traditionalists is that these groups directly threaten and compromise the very essence of true “Frenchness.” Many harbor a sense of nationalism that transcends the concept of national pride and actually results in extreme and egregious discrimination—for example, some believe that to be truly “French” is to be white, Catholic, and multi-generationally French. This statement parades as protectionism when in reality it is rooted in racism. This has created an ongoing and very heated dialogue surrounding immigration policy in the last century.

This French perception of nationalism (hopefully) seems foreign to us in the United States. Our nationality law is based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), meaning that individuals gain immediate citizenship upon being born in the U.S. This has subsequently created the notion that America is a mixing pot of racial identities—our sense of national pride comes from being united as American, not from being one united race. In contrast, most states in Europe, Asia, and Oceania grant citizenship based on principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) or a restricted version of jus solis—as is the case in France. Under this philosophy, individuals become citizens depending on their parents’ citizenship and not by birthplace. This has fostered and accentuated the cultural division in France between natives and immigrants which has resulted in the emergence of a perceived social hierarchy. Because of this heated history and conflicting cultural dynamic, President Hollande’s decision to welcome refugees in spite of opposition (and in spite of recent events) deserves recognition.

France’s situation forcibly evokes a particularly challenging set of questions: at what point should international leaders place a greater emphasis on obligations to humanity than on obligations to their own national interests? How do leaders of the Western community in particular negotiate or reconcile national interests with moral duty? Is there such a thing as a moral duty to the international community? According to the UNHCR: “Since, by definition, refugees are not protected by their own governments, the international community steps in to ensure they are safe and protected.” In fact, in the past few decades 142 nations have signed on to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. By signing this international treaty and its 1967 amendment, the UNHCR states nations are essentially agreeing that “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.”

While we have historically seen that most national actions, even humanitarian ones, are often out of self-interest, it is my sincere hope that international authorities will continue to improve and open their borders to those in need. Afterall, those of us born in Western nations with relatively safe conditions could have just as easily been born into a nation experiencing a crisis. Wouldn’t we then hope and pray for assistance and asylum in the E.U.? In the U.S.?

This debate reminded me of an excerpt from Shakespeare’s play “Sir Thomas More.” Sir Thomas More is a lawyer, sent to address an angry crowd of individuals rioting to get rid of “those immigrants” or “strangers.” Shakespeare delivers a powerful message that transcends time and place when More challenges the natives to consider what they would do if they had to flee their home country:

“Whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,–

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.”

(Sir Thomas More, Act II, Scene IV)

This is the stranger’s case—the immigrant’s case. For many, it’s near impossible to fully comprehend the plight and experiences of today’s refugees, but so important to try. While it’s challenging to reconcile national interests with humanitarian needs, our nationality shouldn’t supersede our humanity.

November 20, 2015 0 comment

Photo by Tânia Rêgo/ABr - Agência Brasil. CC-BY-3.0-br.

Featured LGBT Religion

The Crossroads: The Modernization of the Roman Catholic Church

written by Tala Ahmadi

As one of the world’s oldest institutions still alive today, the Roman Catholic Church has been at the intersection of traditional versus contemporary many times before. The most recent example of this occurred in October, when Pope Francis called on leading clergy to discuss the Church’s approach on family values.

Among the topics discussed at the synod, a meeting of bishops to discuss or determine changes in doctrine, were some of the most controversial issues facing the Church today. These included gay marriage and whether divorced and remarried Catholics can receive Communion. Halfway through the two-week discussion, the Vatican released a preliminary report that caused shockwaves within the Catholic community. The section that prompted the most debate was titled, “Providing for homosexual persons,” and included unprecedented language like, “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community.”

The ensuing response from conservative bishops and Catholics was overwhelmingly negative. American Cardinal Raymond Burke claimed the Church was manipulating information and misrepresenting the discussions going on behind closed doors. The Vatican responded by stating that this was only a preliminary document serving simply as a summary of the topics being discussed. On the last day of the synod, the bishops voted on the final document that had a less welcoming approach than the previous one. The final version no longer contained the “gifts and qualities” sentence and the title of the section was changed to “Pastoral attention to people of homosexual orientation.” Even this watered down version did not get the two-thirds majority vote required to be included in the document. However, per Pope Francis’ request, the paragraphs were inserted in the final document along with the vote count. The Vatican stated this was because the synod will reconvene in a year’s time to discuss the topics once more, and thus the paragraphs can act as a framework for future discussions. This give and take between conservative Catholics and more liberal ones may resemble the internal conflict among Catholic leaders in steering the future of the religion.

To understand why the topics discussed and the actions of Pope Francis are unconventionally progressive, it is helpful to take a closer look at the steps Pope Francis took during the synod in the context of traditional Catholic doctrine. Last year, when asked about his beliefs on gay priests, Francis replied, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” To put this quote in context, Pope Benedict XVI called homosexuality “an intrinsic moral evil.” Additionally, Pope Francis convened the synod to discuss the ways in which the Catholic Church can be more welcoming to the LGBT community. For a religion that deems homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered,” even discussing these topics is unprecedented.

However, convening the synod was not enough for Pope Francis. Halfway through, per Pope Francis’ request, the revolutionary preliminary document containing never before seen language in the history of the Catholic Church was released. Even when the controversial language was then watered down and did not pass, Pope Francis still included it in the final document. In his final speech at the synod, Francis said that bishops were becoming too attached to doctrine, were guided by “hostile rigidity,” and demonstrated a “destructive goody-goodiness.”

Pope Francis’ actions raise two questions that are closely related and are worth considering: Is the Pope too progressive for the current Catholic climate? or Is his progressivism exactly what the Catholic Church needs to reshape its image in the 21st century? I believe the latter.

The Catholic Church is no stranger to controversy. The recent sex abuse scandals, the abrupt resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, and harsh doctrinal language about homosexuality and female leadership roles have tainted the Church’s public image in an increasingly liberal global population. The world has become more receptive to empowering historically marginalized communities. 17 countries have legalized gay marriage and 22 countries have women as President or Prime Minister. Yet, the Catholic Church still does not allow women to become priests and views homosexual activities as sinful. If the Catholic Church wants to remain relevant to the youngest generation and cultivate a sustainable base of support, they must adapt, and this is what Pope Francis is attempting to do.

The last time there were substantial changes to the Catholic Church was during the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965 where institutional modifications, like changing the language used in Holy Mass from Latin to the vernacular, helped ease the Church’s transition into the modern world. Vatican II was called because the Pope at the time (Pope John XXIII) was receptive to the cultural changes ushered in from the aftermath of WWII and wanted to ensure the Church could adapt. The similarities between the Catholic Church’s efforts in the 1960s and Pope Francis’ efforts today are evident, and perhaps Vatican III could be around the corner.

The bishops who convened at October’s synod will be outlived by a generation far more receptive to the needs and desires of communities that have been suppressed. The Catholic Church needs to ensure that it not only has enough support to remain relevant, but also promotes ideologies that are compatible with what it means to be Catholic in the 21st century. However, there is a flipside to this argument. The region with the fastest-growing Catholic population is Sub-Saharan Africa. The Catholics from this region also tend to be the most conservative. Out of the 47 countries on the African continent,36 have outlawed homosexuality and 4 have the death penalty for homosexual acts. Sub-Saharan Africans could become the next major Catholic population, and the future of Catholic doctrine could be heavily influenced by their beliefs.

For the moment however, Pope Francis is doing nearly everything in his power to help usher in a new age for the Catholic Church. His controversial and progressive tactics are causing ripples through an institution that has traditionally clung to its centuries old doctrines and beliefs. Pope Francis is getting senior clerics to talk about some of the most contentious issues that have remained taboo in the Church for quite some time. He could be exactly what the ancient institution needs to mature into the 21st century without losing its relevance and legitimacy.

December 12, 2014 3 comments

UCLA's Foreign Affairs Magazine