One of the most important jobs of this publication, from a religious perspective, is to fight against relativism at Boston College. I have personally helped lead this fight over the course of my four years at BC, but regrettably I have often failed to articulate clearly why exactly I am against relativism as a theology. Although I did publish a brief article on the subject two years ago, I am now dissatisfied with it and wish to amend it with a new article in order that my opinion might become more clear.
First, relativism teaches and holds that theological truths, including what constitutes “good” and “evil,” is a function of who is viewing, or judging, a certain thought or action. This means that different people, or even cultures, can have fundamentally different “truths,” all of which are equally acceptable. More importantly, this definition of relativism removes the ability of any one person or school of thought from claiming that they hold an exclusive truth which can be upheld in all circumstances (with the ironic exception of the relativists themselves).
In Catholicism, relativism is very often manifested through both the debate over which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxy, a fact which Pope Benedict XVI astutely points out in his book “Truth and Tolerance.” At Boston College, the relativists generally accept the notion that the orthopraxy, or the rituals through which religion is expressed, take precedence over the orthodoxy, or the theology itself. The end result, at least on campus, is that we find many students conditioning their Catholic beliefs in order to fit both parts of Church doctrine they like while maintaining beliefs which may not reflect the teachings of the Church. A common example of this occurs which the issue of premarital sex. A student may say “I am certainly Catholic, but I also believe in premarital sex…”
Because the Catholic relativists claim that the Mass, or the ultimate orthopraxy, is more important than the dogma itself, as long as students attend Mass, they are indeed Catholic and can so condition their orthodoxy in accordance with disagreements they may have over Church teachings in regards to personal ethics. In other words, it does not so much matter that I disagree with the Church, as long as I attend the Mass.
Immediately, this notion runs into practical and theoretical concerns, because the orthopraxy is dependent upon the orthodoxy. How the Mass is said, how often one should attend, and what exactly occurs at a Mass are all ultimately matters of orthodoxy. The question very well may (and indeed it has been) asked, “isn’t the Mass, and in fact all orthopraxy a matter of relativism too?” Pushed on the point, the relativist would be forced to concede that the answer is yes. The ultimate result of this, however, is that the Church loses the moral authority to teach in a manner which invites its followers to participate in the fullness of both the orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
What follows is a fraying, or crumbling, of Catholicism, at first around the edges, and then at the very center itself. We are left with a religion which has lost the moral authority to teach to its faithful and to proclaim the logos it has been studying for the past two thousand years. Broaden the scale and apply relativism to all religions, and it is easy to see why a certain type of polytheism has developed in American culture. Because monotheistic religion has lost part of its ability to teach with authority, we now have generations which are orphaned in faith. Lacking the parental structure of religion, they cling not to higher goods, in part because the worth of these goods has been determined to be relative, and they instead seek what Pope Benedict refers to as the gods of old, sex, money, power, drugs, and perhaps even obsessive careers.
When these aspects of society become the focus of life over religion, I truly believe that society has stepped backward, and not forward. If religion is to exist, then surely relativism is not the answer. This is not to say, in the age-old logical fallacy; if not A, then B. The human experience, even when spread across continents, nations, and cultures, is remarkably interconnected. The relativists, in using barriers between cultures to justify their theology, have forgotten how resilient the human spirit is, and how cultures separated by thousands of years and insurmountable geographical circumstances very often still hold the same basic virtues dear to their hearts.
Furthermore, I believe that the relativists have mistaken when they see religion as an aspect applied to culture, almost in the same way that power windows were once an “add-on” to a new car. Seeing religion through the “add-on” lens would seem to suggest that Catholicism cannot be applied to all cultures adequately. In keeping with the car example, one would never “add-on” a tow-hitch to a compact car. What the relativists fail to understand is that religion, in and of itself, especially Catholicism, is a culture, complete with its very own people, music, food, dress, and even philosophies. Modern political theorists have already begun to realize this when they find studies which support the fact that people who tend to describe themselves as “religious” are also considerably more likely to make friends with other “religious” people, even if those people follow different creeds. While at face value this may seem to be obvious, below the surface we know that they everyday life of an ardent Catholic is considerably different from the average everyday life in modern society. Items such as abstinence, daily prayer, and constant spiritual reading are lifestyle, or cultural, aspects which run counter to mainstream American culture.
If we understand Catholicism as a culture which can be applied to any other culture, than the relativists ultimately find themselves in a position in which their basic assumptions are undercut, a position from which they cannot win. Thus, as I understand relativism, it is not only a theology which is bad for Catholic culture, but one which rationally does not make sense in a world which places great value on reason and rationality.
FIRE’s Director of Speech Code Research Samantha Harris explains which aspects of Westfield’s code restrict free speech:
“Westfield’s Student Handbook prohibits ‘discrimination,’ which it defines to include ‘making disparaging remarks that insult or stigmatize a student’s cultural background or race’ as well as ‘making insensitive remarks that reflect a student’s disability.’”
She also notes that as a public university, Westfield is bound by the first amendment, a fact that the school openly acknowledges.
The Book of Illumination: A Novel from the Ghost Files (Photo: Amazon)
On the evening of February 10th at 7:30, Maureen Foley, the author of the new novel The Book of Illumination: A Novel from the Ghost Files, was scheduled to visit the Boston College bookstore at McElroy Commons to converse about, read from, and sign her debut novel.
Written jointly with Mary Ann Winkowski, the novel explores the supernatural world as the main character, Anza, slinks through the streets of Boston in a dangerous, mysterious pursuit.
Maureen Foley is not only a writer, but also a director of feature, fiction, and documentary work, including “American Wake,” “Home Before Dark,” “For the Cure,” and “Commercial Work.”
Mary Ann Winkowski, a popular paranormal investigator, contributed her knowledge of ghoulish communication to the thrilling novel. Having made appearances on TV, been a guest on radio shows, and delivered several lectures on paranormal activity, Winkowski has become a well-known expert of her craft and has helped countless individuals to understand the immortality of the spirit. She is also a consultant to the popular television show “Ghost Whisperer” on CBS.
Creepy, exciting, and attention grabbing, The Book of Illumination boasts an intricate story line that will undoubtedly send shivers up the spines of its readers.
Unfortunately, due to the inclement weather on Wednesday night, the book signing was postponed. The event will be rescheduled for a later date so that Boston College students will have the opportunity to both listen to Foley’s commentary on the novel and hear a sneak peak of the exhilarating tale. Additionally, students will be able to purchase the work after Foley introduces and reads from it.
In a stunning upset, Republican state senator Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general, by a 52-47 margin in the special election to replace the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy. Coakley, who was elected state attorney general in 2006 with over 75 percent of the vote, was the presumed favorite in this election due to her statewide recognition and fundraising advantage. However, after winning a decisive primary on December 8th, Coakley barely campaigned over the next several weeks while Brown campaigned daily.
As Brown closed the gap in the polls, Coakley finally began to campaign. However, her performance in the final eight days explains why she barely campaigned for this position. When asked about her foreign policy experience, she mentioned that she visited her sister overseas once. She also referred to Red Sox legend Curt Schilling as a “Yankee fan.” These statements and other gaffes alienated her from the electorate to the point where not even President Obama could bail her out.
It is unknown when Brown will be seated. Massachusetts election officials are leaving the decision up to the Senate, which may delay the swearing in until the results are certified. At this point, the White House has asked the Senate to confirm Brown without delay. Because interim-Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) is an appointed official, Brown’s swearing-in should happen immediately.
What becomes of the healthcare bill remains to be seen. But now that the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, passing the bill without the GOP will be increasingly difficult.
Congratulations to Senator Brown and the people of Massachusetts!
Among the various views on homosexuality that students have, based on their backgrounds, cultures or religions, it cannot be ignored that there exists a certain amount of hostility towards the GLBTQ community. Although it may not seem significantly present in the sense that one will experience a homophobic situation on a day-to-day basis, it is for those directly dealing with the issue of homophobia.
“It’s definitely present and it manifests itself in different ways at different times to different people,” says Kelsey Gasseling, president of the GLBTQ Leadership Council (GLC).
Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear of homosexual men and women. Now, in no way am I arguing that those who have a negative view towards the GLBTQ community are irrational, I am sure they have reasons for having these particular views.
Homophobia becomes an issue when it is direct. Gasseling explains: “No one has been aggressive to me, for example, by calling me a dyke or by other derogatory names to my face.” However, the situation of ‘direct’ homophobia changes whether one is female or male. Gasseling explains that some of her male homosexual friends have been labeled by derogatory names, and that the insults came primarily from other non-homosexual males.
And homophobia is not just name-calling, it can also involve making someone feel uncomfortable or as if they don’t belong.
One must also consider the other type of human population on this campus: the professors and the Jesuits.
Although, Gasseling shares that it is a “mixed bag” in terms of the amount of support given by professors, homophobic views are still expressed occasionally. There have been cases when professors or advisors will counsel students on the assumption that they are non-GLBTQ students. One such example was a friend of Gasseling who asked his advisor for an opinion about a certain class dealing with HIV and AIDS in America. The advisor replied negatively and expressed that it was most likely a class taught in a ‘gay’ perspective. He further stated that the student (Gasseling’s friend) did not need to ‘clutter’ his mind with such things.
It must be considered that, though professors are generally supposed to treat students equally, homophobic tendencies do exist.
Some students, or professors, may argue that being a Jesuit school BC should not feel the need to make its GLBTQ students welcome; under the assumption that GLBTQ students chose to come to Boston College and were aware of its religious affiliations.
“No one has called me a sinner to my face. But I am sure there are catholic students who have that view considering some of the articles that have been published,” Gasseling expresses.
Although this is the view of some catholic students, many Jesuits on campus believe that the university should not discriminate against the GLBTQ community. There should not be a conflict between being GLTBQ and being a part of the Catholic religion, as these are two different components that make up part of one’s identity. Sadly, many students remain homophobic in terms of the GLBTQ community and the Catholic religion.
Gasseling reflects: “It’s a heavy weight in my chest, a deep sorrow that people feel this way.”
Nonetheless the majority of insensitive remarks are a result of ignorance and assumption. Many non-GLTBQ students express homophobic thoughts through their choice of words. Have you heard the expressions “That’s so gay” or “Stop being such a homo?” Though one may not realize it at the time, these expressions are laden with controversy. How do you describe what is ‘gay?’ What is being a homo? Gasseling reacts by saying “What do you really mean?”
And although many would object to by saying they do not actually mean it in a discriminative way, one must compare it to a racial slur. You would not let someone use an expression that discriminated against a certain race, would you? It just comes down to ignorance and a lack of dignity to stand up to such expressions.
To another degree, assumptions can give off a homophobic environment. For instance, professors may be discussing issues of sexuality and ask a woman about an ideal husband or a man about an ideal wife. The assumption is that homosexuality is non-existent. Many of the foundations of this assumption are based on the way a homosexual person is ‘supposed’ to look, essentially the stereotype of a homosexual.
The matter of homophobia’s presence on the Boston College campus is more a result of ignorance and assumption. Homophobia seems to be caused by people not really thinking before they speak and stereotyping. Although the GLC has made a lot of effort to raise awareness and support through various events across the semester, their most recent effort Queer Peers, the BC campus remains generally unaware. Unaware of what the people around them may be facing and unaware of how they affect the people around them. BC is not a homophobic environment. It is simply an ‘unaware’ one, one that needs to take a few more steps in acceptance of the differences between individuals.
President Obama made a critical decision last week to send 30,000 thousand additional troops to Afghanistan to combat an increasingly violent and powerful Taliban. The resurgence of this group over the past year or so has turned the eyes of the country and the world, away from the disputed, and previously deadlier, war in Iraq to Afghanistan.
This “surge” strategy endorsed by President Obama was initially recommended by General Stanley A. McChrystal, in essence the head of foreign forces in Afghanistan. Obama, the constant critic of the previous administration, seems to be following in the footsteps of former President Bush in regards to wartime policies. Obama had criticized the surge strategy in Iraq, which has been at least partially attributed to the present stability in that country.
However, Obama has seen the success of the surge in Iraq and is, somewhat hypocritically, enacting a similar policy in an attempt to start his own, similar turn around in Afghanistan. But Obama has yet to realize that the thirty thousand American troops, plus whatever our very generous European allies can afford to spare (sarcasm), are just numbers at this point.
Obama is a highly intelligent man and I am disappointed that he appears to be taking such a shallow approach to finding a solution. His ideas on how to win the war resemble his approach to some of our current economic woes. To solve problems with the economy he has just thrown more and more money into circulation. Now, it appears Obama is throwing more and more troops at the problem in Afghanistan.
The solution for Afghanistan does not lie solely in numbers of troops deployed there, but the strategy that those troops are enacting. This is one of the longest conflicts that the United States has been involved in and despite our desire for a successful and stable Afghanistan, we also need to realize that at some point we will have to and we will need to leave Afghanistan.
So Obama should take some notes from President Bush’s surge, but he also must recognize the complex problems in Afghanistan and address them, using troops to help do just that. Political corruption is one of the main issues, if not the main issue, and it cannot wholly be solved by a larger troop presence. These troops can, however, help to prevent Taliban forces from taking over more provinces, protect civilians, and start eliminating heroin production. Obama must recognize that the Iraq surge was more than just an influx of troops, it was a complex strategy that involved winning over former enemies and protecting civilians, not just eliminating al Qaeda and other insurgent groups.
I wish President Obama the best of luck seeing as the situation in Afghanistan is probably ten times more complex and difficult than the situation was in Iraq, due to terrain and a thorny cultural layout. And I hope that President Obama does the right thing and sets our country on a course for a departure and sets Afghanistan on a course for sustained success.
Registration is a difficult time at BC. For upperclassmen, registration comes before Thanksgiving and most people are burnt out enough as it is before registration rolls around. Who has time to worry about next semester when papers are due and teachers are trying to wrap things up before the Thanksgiving break?
Freshmen have a slightly different situation. Instead of before the break, freshmen have their registration after Thanksgiving. For some, it is the Monday morning right after the break. Not many people want to spend their break plotting their future but it is something that needs to be done.
Registration is hectic. It may not be in a loud crowded room in Lyons as it was during orientation but then again we don’t have an advisor holding our hand every step of the way. Advisor meetings can take place weeks before registration. The advisor’s suggestions may be a distant memory in the midst of midterms and papers.
There are certainly advantages to registering for classes with your own computer. It is more convenient for most and it eliminates the possibility that those old computers might crash on you. The lack of a hectic environment may prove to be a problem, however.
The fact still remains: classes are going to close quickly. You might think that you can take your time because you are at your own computer but that is not a strategy that is going to get you the professor you want. Registration will still be a mess wherever it takes place.
There aren’t really any suggestions that are going to make registration any less stressful. But I think we are all glad that it’s over.
In the past few months, we have seen and heard more and more of our President’s Healthcare Reform Bill. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, not many of us know what this bill actually implies. The whole healthcare dispute has concentrated on President Obama being too broad and how aggressively he is pushing for the bill to pass. While both of these issues are true, we are forgetting the bill’s significance entirely. I am here to breakdown President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Bill and explain what it means to you and your pocket.
The Bill plans to fix the high cost of health care by making it more affordable, increase healthcare coverage to children, computerize patients’ health records, research better treatments for illnesses, and to invest in prevention. While this all sounds grand, at what cost does the President want Americans to pay? Already over eight trillion dollars in debt, we must reevaluate whether the reform is worth the cost. Moreover, the cost for this “fix-all” bill is unknown. Some say more than $630 billion while other say it won’t cost us a dime. Ultimately, if we don’t know what the cost of the reform is, we don’t know how much we’ll save.
The President claims that he, “will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit,” yet analysts question how this is even remotely possible. Obama plans to not add “even one dime to our deficit” by letting the wealthy and middle class pay for most of it. Obama’s Healthcare Reform Bill cannot possibly help the economy. In fact, all evidence proves just the opposite. We must keep in mind that the health care industry is part of the American economy. By dismantling it, faulty as it may be, we are dismantling, or possibly even destroying, an entire industry.
The bill also plans to mandate health insurance. By doing so, about 100 million Americans would have to switch to a more expensive government designed health plan. Americans that don’t receive adequate insurance coverage will be required to purchase one or be fined (a tax equal to 2.5% of their income) until they do so. This is a clear violation of Obama’s promise to let people keep their current health insurance.
A study at MIT by Amy Finkelstein, suggests that the dominance of insurance itself has almost doubled the cost of healthcare. So by expanding coverage, we would also be increasing the cost of healthcare. Making health insurance compulsory would make it easier for anyone to get coverage, which is beneficial for Americans with chronic diseases but would, at the same time, increase the cost for young and healthy Americans.
There are only two ways, according to CATO, that the bill would help the economy. One way would be not mandating health insurance; however this would defeat the purpose of the reform. Another way would be increasing funding to alleviate healthy individuals of high costs, which means that the government would have to provide the funding (increasing the deficit).
All in all, the President’s Healthcare Reform Bill is unrealistic. There is no way that Americans are willing to risk paying more in taxes and in healthcare when they are not guaranteed that the reform is worth it. The bill would not only have drastic repercussions on the American economy but also spark political disputes over what should be covered and what should not.
The United States government lags behind the rest of the world’s relaxed punishments for junior offenders. The United Nations is championing a movement towards relaxed justice towards these minor and has gotten all members, except for Somalia and the United States, to sign a treaty forbidding the lifelong imprisonment of delinquents under the age of 18.
The United States is hard pressed to adopt such standards but is careful to consider all complications and implications of creating these laws. Due to the controversial nature of these laws, the Supreme Court has begun the process of judicial review and is deliberating whether or not the law violates the eighth amendment’s restriction on cruel and unusual punishment.
A handful of states have already established laws prohibiting life without parole for minors setting a precedent that the Supreme Court will hopefully adopt. The United State’s confused stance on this issue is surprising, as children, especially as young as thirteen, are at the pinnacle of their adolescence development. According to Erik Erikson, a well-known psychologist, children start questioning their identity and their role in the world as early as thirteen years old.
This continues until an individual begins to mature at nineteen years old. Individuals in this age range experiment with their identities often looking for elders as role models. During such a formidable time in a youth’s life, influences in adult jails will further corrupt these individuals when they could have been reformed.
In the cases, Sullivan vs. Florida and Graham vs. Florida, the Supreme Court ruling was especially important, as both defendants are the victims of the harsh youth sentencing laws. Joe Sullivan was sentenced when he was thirteen years old with a history of crime culminating in a questionable sexual assault charge. His judge concluded that he was beyond reform and should live the rest of his life beyond bars.
A New York Times Editorial passionately stated such sentences “should trouble Americans deeply, as should all of the barbaric sentencing policies for children that this country embraces but that most of the world has abandoned.” Despite the mounting psychological research and public outcry, Florida has sentenced 2,200 juveniles to life without parole.
Supporters of these harsh laws argue that criminals, regardless of age, should face the full penalty for their actions. That rationale is rash, and ignores the fragile, confused world that minors live in from day to day.
Since 1919, we as a nation have been honoring our veterans who have risked their lives to protect us during wartime. President Woodrow Wilson first declared November 11, 1919 to be Armistice Day in honor of World War I. Today, we celebrate Veterans Day to honor the 25 million veterans that have served our country.
Clearly, we live in different times than those in the early 20th century, but that does not mean that our veterans should mean less. There are no longer any parades or carnivals honoring our soldiers, but instead meager town ceremonies that commemorate the many years soldiers have committed to this country.
After almost a century of existence, many people would not even remember Veterans Day was still celebrated, if it were not for the reminder on the news or a small banner on the cover of the daily paper.
Although life does go on, Veterans Day is a national holiday, but for whom? The national government and its agencies shut down, but most other businesses do not. So much for a holiday for veterans since most veterans, if they’re not retired, are employed in the working world that does not shut down.
During the mid-twentieth century, our country was just ending a war in which most of our nation participated. Political views set aside, the country came together as one to build a strong base for those men fighting for us. Although current efforts are still made to help our soldiers, the question still remains if most of the country participates in these efforts.
We have become so enraptured with political ideology that we forget this national memory is not just for the Republicans or Democrats, but for everyone. All political parties should be disregarded, and we should come together as a solid nation to honor those who have risked their lives and made sacrifices for us so that we may sleep soundly at night. These people did so much for us, the least we can do is give them a celebration one day per year.
Evidently, not enough is being done to honor this national memory that has been around for almost a century. On Veteran’s Day, I saw an officer in uniform walk up to the elevators in Campanella when an entire throng of students exited and not one person greeted the officer with a “Happy Veterans Day!” Do we, as young adults, not know the significance of this national holiday? As the new majority of the population, will we carry on the tradition of Veterans Day as we grow older?
Surely, there will always be friends of ours in the military, but will you remember to give them a pat on the back and say thanks? Chances are, probably not. If it were not for the reminders, pre-written in planners, or broadcasted on the news, I doubt anyone would remember. It usually is not until the day after that we realize it has already passed because of the photographs taken and stories written about such ceremonies or events honoring our veterans from the day before.
I was pleased to find out that at St. Ignatius on Wednesday, November 11, it was a packed house to celebrate Veterans Day and the dedication of the new memorial built to honor the BC alumni who were killed participating in war. About 850 people gathered to celebrate this beautiful memorial and the people whose names are carved into the strong, black granite on the Burns Library lawn. Although this touching memory is a wonderful exhibition of our gratitude for those who have served, I hope that even if the memorial was not being dedicated, this many people would be at St. Ignatius anyway.
In order to preserve this national memory that has lasted for a century, we should set aside our political beliefs and say thank you to those who risk their lives to protect ours. Veterans Day should not only be once a year, but every day. All it takes is a “thank you” to show those in uniform our appreciation for everything they do.
