Genocide

The African country of Rwanda experienced a horrific genocide in 1994, leaving approximately 800,000 people dead. The Rwandan genocide accurately depicts the spiral of violence in Catholic Social Teaching. The spiral is evident with regard to the tensions between the Hutus and the Tutsis. A basic injustice is rooted in the Belgian favoritism of the Tutsi minority people during the Belgian's possession of Rwanda. When the Belgians departed, the Hutu people rose to power in the government. Years of oppression under the Tutsis incited a violent response in retaliation from the Hutus. A Hutu extremist group, the Interhamwe, obtained arms, machetes, and machine guns for use to kill Tutsis. Heightened violent fighting erupted between the Interhamwe and the RPF, a Tutsi extremist group. The Interhamwe wiped out Tutsis in entire villages and towns; they also killed many Tutsi sympathizers. Eventually, the intense fighting was stopped when the RPF pushed the Interhamwe over the border into Congo. The violence temporarily ended. However, this peace was tainted by more injustice as seen in certain actions of court systems such as gacaca. As shown, the Rwandan genocide is a prime example of the spiral of violence. The violence could have been slowed or stopped before it became a full-fledged genocide had European countries intervened in a timely manner. Intervention by European armies would have saved thousands of innocent lives. It also would have stemmed the power flow to the Interhamwe before the Hutu group got to the maximum level it was able to reach.

This spiral of violence is also evident in events in our own nation's history. Much violence was involved in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Extremist groups such as the KKK and the Black Panther Party emerged. Violent responses and counter-responses ensued between the two groups. Luckily, the end of the Civil Rights Movement resolved some of these violent tensions. Recently, the spiral of violence was most likely avoided when the U.S. chose not to bomb Syria. The idea of the bombings was incited by the basic injustices being practiced in Syria and on its people. Had the United States chosen to go ahead with the bombings, increased violence and violent counter-attacks most likely would have ensued. Several other infamous events in American history have come close to continuing down the endless spiral of violence. Obvious signs of the beginning of this spiral must be addressed and the acts of violence stopped. Horrible acts such as the Rwandan genocide and the fighting during the Civil Rights Movement cannot be repeated in our world's future.

Restoring Justice in Rwanda

After the genocide in April to June of 1994, Rwanda set up community courts known as gacaca. These courts' purposes were to speed up the process of convicting those people involved in the genocide. Although created with good intent, some of these courts ended up being filled with unqualified judges and skewed priorities (many of the RPF prime officials were never tried in the gacaca courts). The courts' primary goals were to help reinstall truth, justice and reconciliation in war-torn Rwanda. Many of the offenders did not have sufficient access to defense lawyers; an estimated 65% of the hundreds of thousands tried at the gacaca courts were deemed guilty and were convicted. Some of the genocide participants were later released from their prison sentences and sent back to their communities, causing tension, stress and mild fear among the other inhabitants in the community.

The installation of the gacaca courts coincided with several major themes of Catholic Social Teaching. The courts responded to the Call to Family, Community, and Participation by involving the entire community in the hunt to justly prosecute those involved in the horrific Rwandan genocide. As Phil Clark mentions in his article, almost all community members participated in the court system as witnesses, defendants, or simply attending weekly hearings. They strengthened the bond of the community in a hard time. The gacaca also encompassed the theme of Rights and Responsibilities. Seeing as the Rwandan government and its judicial system were in somewhat of a shambles during the time, the rise of gacaca courts offered a speedier way to try and convict genocide offenders. Finally, the courts supported the theme of Life and Dignity of the Human Person. The main goal of the courts was to restore peace and justice. Out of respect of the life and dignity of each and every innocent person shamelessly killed in the genocide, the courts tried and convicted hundreds of thousands of the perpetrators.

Although overall a helpful plan and idea, the gacaca courts also contained a few major flaws. Firstly, and most importantly, they were missing qualified officials to try the criminals on a just basis according to and following the law. Without the permittance of lawyers, the offenders had no way to defend themselves. Secondly, the courts also carried subliminal discrimination and bias. For example, several of the leaders of the RPF were never tried in the gacaca courts. Finally, the courts often times did not sentence punishments worthy of the severity of the crimes committed. Some of the offenders got off with only community service in their own communities - the communities where, a few months prior, they had set out to kill several Tutsi and their Tutsi-sympathizing neighbors. The gacaca courts may have needed a stricter and more formal air about them.

Lethal Injection?

Three-drug lethal injection is currently used by 35 states and the federal government as a means of execution in the United States. The first injection is an anesthetic, the second causes paralysis, and the third causes the heart to stop followed by death. After reading the two articles, I have gained a greater understanding of this process. I am somewhat surprised after reading the article about the Supreme Court cases. The fact that the Court has never deemed an execution method unconstitutional baffles me.  I do not agree with its idea that since the three-drug method does not cause pain, it is acceptable. Studies have shown that inmates from Ohio, Florida, Missouri, and California have all shown signs of feeling pain due to inadequate dosages of injections. Lethal injection is an utterly inhumane act to end one's life. I also do not agree with the potential idea to allow the death penalty for child-rape cases. Obviously, the aggressors should receive lengthy prison sentences. However, as Justice Stephen Breyer summarized, with the approval of the death penalty for child rape, the door opens to allowing the death penalty to other crimes. Sooner or later, will every crime be punishable by the death penalty? Firm lines need to be drawn in regards to the application of this sentence.

The article from Medical News Today provides strong points as to why the death penalty is inhumane. I agree with this article. The protocol for capital punishment is sloppy and inconsistent. As the article states, doctors cannot be involved in these procedures, so anethesia is often times improperly doled out. Several inmates are aware during their injections due to inadequate amounts of anesthesia. The "painless" injection is, in some cases, not so painless after all. Based on these facts alone, the death penalty by lethal injection is a plain violation of the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. In several cases, death penalty sentences are biased and discriminatory. After reading this article, I have come to realize that there are several major flaws involved in lethal injection that may be kept under wraps. Lethal injection methods in the United States must be reevaluated or restructured.

The mere debating of execution methods just creeps me out. The fact that our country even needs to debate this speaks volumes to the way in which our society has evolved. It is a "pick your poison" situation. Why does the United States, a leading democracy worldwide, participate in horrible practices only found in obscure countries? A stand needs to be taken against death by lethal injection in our country.

Greening the Ghetto

Majora Carter, founder of Sustainable South Bronx, presented several environmental and economic issues in her Ted Talk. Majora fully supports a sustainable development in regards to inner cities. In her talk, she presented several visionary techniques that should be implemented to restore multiple areas in the South Bronx, where she grew up. She provides a myriad of shocking examples that show that inner cities need green areas in order to thrive and survive. Majora outlines several medical complications that have arisen due to the lack of "green" in the city environment - i.e. asthma, obesity, and diabetes. She also touches upon the fact that through the years, several national highway incentives have blatantly disturbed the peace in many South Bronx neighborhoods. According to Majora, economic, environmental, and social degradation all stem off of one another. After much toil and many tribulations, she was able to successfully implement a "green" waterfront space - the first the South Bronx has seen in about 60 years. She relates certain happenings with Katrina and in Bogota to the current situations that can be found in the South Bronx. Majora Carter is making a strong statement that sustainable developments benefit all parties - the government, community, and individuals alike.

Majora's mission directly coincides with the seventh theme of Catholic Social Teaching, Care for God's Creation. She promotes sustainable stewardship of the land, of God's creation. Her philanthropic endeavors support a green, eco-friendly environment in which government and community can both equally thrive. Majora insists that we must take responsibility in promoting green environments, especially in inner-city areas. Sustainable South Bronx takes into consideration the effect its acts will have on generations to come. By ridding the South Bronx waterfront of debris and solid waste, Majora respects God's creation. She also enacts the CST theme of Solidarity in her attempts to unite the whole South Bronx. Yet another Catholic Social Teaching theme that Greening the Ghetto supports is the Call to Family, Community, and Participation. By participating in "greening" activities in the inner cities, individuals better their communities while simultaneously bettering their families. Greening the Ghetto lends a hand to and remembers several low-income families, thus embodying the theme of Dignity of Work. As Majora suggests, we must come together to promote a green environment in which our nation and its accomplishments can grow and flourish in the likeness of God.

Justice for Immigrants

Archbishop Chaput specifically outlines 5 main principles concerning immigration in the United States in his article. His first element is directed towards a faster, safer means of obtaining citizenship for undocumented immigrant workers. I agree with this statement. The citizenship process is a detailed, grueling, time-consuming process for most undocumented workers; the process prevents them from getting official documents more quickly and immediately getting back to work to support their families and other needs. His second principle calls for the family-based immigration system to more easily and more readily reunite families. I also agree with this principle because in order to respond to the call to family and community, one must be with his or her family. The third principle requests the legal entry of migrant workers into the U.S. for needed labor purposes. Personally, I am torn in regards to this facet. Yes, it would be helpful to be able to skip the process of becoming legalized and have workers come in directly for labor; it would be cheaper, easier, and more reliable. However, I also feel that those jobs should be reserved for the people of our own country. Although they would be jobs for low-skilled workers, the jobs, with the shaky economy and job availability we have surrounding us at the moment, should be held for other Americans who are unemployed and need work. Archbishop Chaput's fourth principle outlines process protections for immigrants. Finally, his fifth principle states that policies must be initialized that research the root causes of the influx migrations to the United States. I strongly agree with this statement; to fully analyze a specific occurrence or "problem", we must take into account all factors affecting the situation. In this case, we must uncover the root problems as to why immigrants have been making their way to America. In summary, an immigration reform is needed and necessary.

Several themes of Catholic Social Teaching go hand-in-hand with the current immigration issue. For one, the theme of the Call to Family, Community, and Participation calls for special attention to families, family matters, and the well-being of the community. In order to support this theme, the immigration reform, as suggested in Archbishop Chaput's second theme, must strive to reconnect family members. We must promote the life and dignity of the human person by granting citizenship, thus providing access to health care and other medical assistance. According to the Responsibilities and Rights theme of CST, immigrants have a right to decent work, reasonable wage, and safe working conditions. The theme of Responsibilities and Rights also supports immigration, implying that all people have the right to decide to move from one country to another without several complications. In order to recognize the dignity of work and the rights of the immigrant workers, we must making the legalization process easier to sort through. We as a nation must embrace the concept of solidarity, being one and open to all people.

It's About Forgiveness...

Most Americans can remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news about the horrifying terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. These attacks caused widespread panic, fear, and sadness. Coincidentally, my dad was flying from Philadelphia to San Francisco that day - at the breaking of the news of the attacks, my family had originally thought they said a hijacked plane was from Philadelphia to San Francisco. Luckily, that was not the case - we soon found out the flight was from Newark to San Francisco (Flight 93). Following the attacks, Americans were outraged. Our nation simultaneously crumbled then got significantly stronger in spirit and nationalism within a day or two. An immediate reaction was hatred for the terrorists, al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, and the like. Afterall, they had caused an uproar in our country and cost the lives of thousands of innocent people. Twelve years later, many Americans still feel the sting from that day and from Osama Bin Laden himself. Is it time for forgiveness? After reading Mike Hayes' article, I have gained a new appreciation for what forgiveness really means and believe that we should move towards forgiveness on the topic of Osama Bin Laden. 

Prior to reading the article, I had falsely thought of forgiveness as reconciliation; I had not recognized the difference between the two. I now understand that forgiveness is more of a one-sided means of emotional healing. According to Hayes, forgiveness allows us to move forward from events that have happened in the past with a sense of renewal of self. Also, I had believed that forgiveness was a sign of weakness, and that the actions being forgiven would probably continue to occur. However, the article has given me the crucial insight that justice can and will still be served even if one forgives. Justice may still be served, but we need forgiveness in order to let go of some of the hatred in our lives and the lives of those surrounding us.

I believe we must begin to try to forgive Osama Bin Laden for what he has done, although it may be hard to fathom. Haven't we always been taught by the example of Jesus Christ to "turn the other cheek"? By absolutely no means does the forgiveness justify any of Bin Laden's horrific wrongdoings. However, I think we as a country need to rid ourselves of the outward hatred felt towards him by beginning the process of forgiving him. Pent up anger and hatred may turn to outward actions, and then we would simply be retaliating in the exact same violent way that he had. As a country, we will never obtain reconciliation, but we must strive for forgiveness. As Proverbs 24:29 says, "Do not say, 'I'll do to him as he has done to me: I'll pay that man back for what he did.'" Vengeance is a vicious cycle, often repeated. Matthew 6:14-15 states, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." As Hayes touches on, forgiveness may be hard but it is a necessary act in order to cleanse the soul. I believe that, granted it will be hard, we are called to forgive Osama Bin Laden for his deadly attacks on September 11, 2001 in order to bring emotional healing to those families and friends directly affected and to the United States as a whole.

Justice vs. Charity

According to Hilfiker, justice involves the fairness that people deserve to have. Justice is a result of social structures that guarantee people's moral rights. Justice is a more permanent objective. Meanwhile, according to Hilfiker, charity is simply generosity given freely by a person, at any time being in danger of being withdrawn. Charity helps to ease hardship until a social structure is created for that specific problem area. Charity provides a breathing interim until justice is achieved; however, charity can not reach all those that need help or assistance. Personally, I agree with his statement. In my opinion, many people view charity as the "quick fix" way of righting wrongs. For example, imagine soup kitchens and homeless shelters in Philadelphia not existing. The thousands of homeless people once helped by these charitable institutions would be out on the streets with no place to go. Since the problem would be directly in their faces, the government and higher officials would probably have to immediately take action in trying to help these people; however, since this is not the case in present day, these people have not taken the actions needed to ensure moral rights for those in need. I have seen countless homeless people in Philadelphia alone. The $5 one might give them at that moment in time does not suffice in supporting them in the long run. If justice was obtained more quickly, the charity step could technically be bypassed altogether. Although charity is a benevolent gesture, it does not fix any problems absolutely. Those providing charity can back out at any time, while justice is a more absolute rule or law. Justice finds the solutions to present problems in society through laws and rights. Charity nurtures justice. As a Catholic, I believe we must participate in charitable works, but we must not let that blind us of the primary goal of bringing justice to everyone. In the justice vs. charity issue, an appropriate sense of outrage is necessary. An "appropriate sense of outrage" is a justified feeling of outrage and shock when talking about the unjustified conditions of certain individuals in our society. A present appropriate sense of outrage puts a fire under the system, making it faster to obtain justice and also making us realize that we must actively be involved in bringing about said justice.