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.

Syria

I believe there are a few questions that the U.S. must consider before jumping into action in regards to Syria. With US involvement comes the potential loss of US soldiers and ammunition. Firstly, should the strikes backfire, is there a possibility of Syrian retaliation against the US and its people? A seemingly good idea at first may backfire on us in the long run, putting our country and its civilians in danger. Secondly, how many more innocent people would have to die? The strikes would inevitably wipe out more families and children, although granted significantly less than that caused by chemical weapons. US men and women may also be lost. Thirdly, would the strikes really even make a stand against chemical warfare, or would they be ignored down the road by other aggressive powers? Strong powers such as Russia may disregard the United States' attempt of a taking a stand. There are both pros and cons if the US intervenes. If the US intervened, it would make a stand against the use of chemical weapons, which are against the "norm" in warfare nowadays. On the other hand, since President Obama has not acted immediately but rather has had Congress review the action, the impact may not be as great. The specified countries know he has hesitated with his decision, which the countries may not take as seriously and may then regard loosely. If the US intervenes, other countries may follow suit and take a stand against chemical warfare as well. However, a US intervention may lead to possible war involvement in the future. Also, a unilateral strike would not be in our best interest; an international stand would send a much greater and more powerful message. A US intervention would bring some hope to the Syrian people. I think the Catholic faith and Tradition would suggest trying to maintain peaceful relations with Syria. I also think the Catholic faith and Tradition would say that it is not a just war to be fought, and we have no business in intervening in a harmful or deadly way.