Freedom From Judgement

In my last blog, I discussed how some religions practiced in America can cause women to restrict their rights, and whether or not non-members of that religion are justified in judging that religion based on the fact that the beliefs held by members of that religion restrict women's rights. One example of a religion that is practiced in America and can cause women to restrict their rights is Islam.

Americans value freedom almost more than anything. Due to this, I would speculate that to many non-Muslim Americans, a lot of Shariah (Islamic Law) regarding women may seem to infringe on things that they consider  to be every Americans right.  Such as the ability to wear what you want (freedom of expression), being allowed to drive a car, and being able to leave the house or seek employment without having to first be given permission by your husband. Non-Islamic people may wonder if women could really be happy under these laws.

This brings to mind an article in the New York Times that I read a while back. It's the story of a girl named Tharima who organizes an all girl prom for the Muslim girls at her school because following Shariah they aren't allowed to go to their school's boy/girl prom. Tharima's hard work payed off and her dream became a reality; the prom was a success. What is important to remember from this story is that (as far as I can tell) Tharima's dream was not to go to the boy/girl prom. She chose to do prom her way, and a way that would follow the guidelines of her religion.

Tharima setting up for prom night

At this point reader, you may be conflicted. On one hand, people's rights are restricted which conflicts with many Americans strong sense of freedom. On the other hand, it seems that many of the American women whose rights are restricted consider those rules part of being a faithful and moral person and are also happy living their lives according to these religious guidelines.

Although it may seem contradictory I would argue that restricting your own rights is an example of true freedom. People should have the freedom to not express their freedoms if they don't want to. And I'm not only talking about legal freedom, I'm talking about social freedom as well. I'm talking about not judging someone just because they chose to wear Hijab or go to an all girl prom. Everyone knows that in America you legally have the freedom to be part of any religion but I wonder if people of different religions feel equally free. Some people may think that if you have to dress a certain way according to a religion then you're not very American because you aren't expressing your freedom. I would argue that the only thing that would make someone feel not American is the judgement received from these types of people: people who misinterpret the meaning of freedom.

Lastly, I would like to add that because religion is a sensitive subject, I hope I did not offend anyone in this blog. If I have, please let me know. Addationally, I would like to make clear that I am only talking about religious freedom in the context of American society, not on a global scale. I also admit to not being as knowledgeable as maybe I should be to discuss this subject, considering the fact that I am neither a Muslim or a member of the particular branch of Christianity that the couple getting married in my last blog are a part of.

I Now Pronounce You Lord and Follower

While attending a recent wedding, the minister had some “advice” for the newlyweds (particularly the wife) which came as a bit of a surprise to me. He said that by getting married she consequently accepted, “her duty to submit”. He went on to say that she must only focus on her husbands positive qualities and never his negative ones. His advice to the husband was to be a strong leader and love his wife. To emphasize these points he used this passage from the bible.

All of this was a shock to me, but what was the most jarring was the idea that women should submit to their husbands as they “do to the Lord”. This seems to imply that women should treat their husbands as if they were their God. I think it can be assumed that most Christian people believe that their God is right in everything that she/he does. This would mean that the husband would be justified in everything that he did, no matter what it was.




I feel as though this man’s purpose in telling this couple what it meant to be married was to establish gender roles. Not only that, but to actually argue that these gender roles are “God’s will”. My initial reaction to all this was disbelief, coupled with disapproval. But then, I looked at the couple actually getting married.

Both husband and wife had smiles across their blushing faces as they stood together. They seemed completely happy and content with the ceremony and obviously cared about each other deeply. So although to me it seemed that this woman’s natural born rights as an equal human being were being infringed upon, and that she was being told that her duty in life was submission and servitude, maybe the couple getting married doesn’t see it as harshly as that. Maybe, the couple getting married actually finds comfort in these gender roles. Who am I to judge how people wish to live their lives? Maybe, it comforts the woman to know that her husband will be “the man of the house” and will be able to guide them through life.

As someone who cares both about religion and human rights issues deeply, this question, of whether or not it is ok for religions to establish gender roles and cause inequality, is one that has caused me a great deal of thought. Can we even say that people’s rights are being restricted if they themselves are voluntarily restricting them? Do non-members of a religion really have the right to judge what members of a religion consider to be their morals?

A Controversial Claim

A little while back, in an American Studies course I am taking, the topic of the military was brought up. Specifically, the fact that almost no students from the my school, New Trier High School, become members of the U.S. military. Personally, I do not know a single person who has ever even mentioned wanting to join the military. Why? Well, my response to this question was, “because students from New Trier don’t see it as being very rewarding”.

This statement received a huge gasp from my fellow peers as though I had just said, “bomb” on a plane. While I’ll admit I could have phrased it much better, I stand by the main message of this statement for a number of reasons. To begin with, it seems like basic logic to me. People want to spend their time doing something that is rewarding in some way. Whether it be financially, spiritually, emotionally- it doesn’t matter as long as they are rewarded in some way. So therefore, if people chose not to do something, it’s because they found something else that is more rewarding based on what they value.

This begs the question, what do New Trier students value? Well I can’t say exactly because not everyone is exactly the same, but I think I’ve noticed some general trends. First and foremost, academic achievement. New Trier is ranked 139th on Newsweek’s Best High School List. Clearly, academic achievement is valued at this school. If that’s not enough, I can personally testify to hearing countless conversations between stressed out students unsatisfied with their GPA. Not to mention every single advisory gets their own “Post-High School Counselor”. Which at this school, really means a college counselor. Due to this value of academic achievement kids are naturally inclined to turn to college rather than the military because it would reward them more academically.

Another value that New Trier student’s often associate with academic achievement is success. Success being defined as acquiring wealth, respect or fame (with an emphasis on wealth). While the military is undoubtedly respected by most Americans, it usually doesn’t lead to fame or wealth in the way that going straight to college and then starting a career can. When I think about the most successful people in America, very few have served in the military, aside from a few politicians. I’m not saying that you can’t become successful after having served in the military, I’m just saying you’re more likely to be successful by going straight to college. Regardless of whether or not you agree with me on that last point this is what North Shore teenagers are taught.

Who or what is teaching us this? I would argue, that although there are many factors, a major one is our parents. If you live in the north shore there is a very good chance you’re family is successful. Therefore, we can assume that at least one parent of the majority of New Trier students are successful. Whether we like it or not, parents influence us kids a great deal, and this case is no exception.

These are just some of the reasons why the majority of New Trier students don’t see the army as being very rewarding. What other factors might cause New Trier students to not view the army as the most rewarding career path? Or, do New Trier students choose not to join the army because of other reasons?

Freedom of Religion

Recently, while talking with a few friends, the topic of religion was brought up. Specifically the way in which Christianity is being taught to kids. We were all Christian/Catholic and some of us were even in the same sunday school class when we were kids. It was interesting to hear what everyone’s beliefs and practices were now.

For the most part everyone said that while they went to sunday school every week when they were kids, but now the only time they went to church was on easter or christmas. I began to wonder why this was.

I remember when I was younger I dreaded waking up at seven in the morning to go to sunday school. I think part of the reason why I disliked it so much was because it was forced on me. I had no choice in whether or not I was going to sunday school, and certainly had no choice in the matter of being baptized. I never got any explanation as to why I had to go, I just had to go. During an interview for a paper I was writing for an American Studies course, the man I was interviewing had a similar experience. He said, “I went to church every sunday, but I would never really listen”. I think this lack of interest is pretty common for kids, and yet parents still make them go.

On those most boring sunday mornings, I would sit there while they told me exactly what I had to believe. There was no room for varying levels of belief or different points view. I distinctly remember learning from an actual textbook. I can’t recall a single time I was ever asked what I believed.

This reminds me of the intro to the song Let It Alone by rap group Collective Efforts. The person speaking in the intro says, “There shouldn’t be a rush to faith. Either you got faith or you don’t have faith. At the very moment I realize I don’t have it I am questing for it… even when I’m questioning what it is”. This quote illustrates a lot of what I’m trying to say and actually to some extent, explains my own experience with religion. I don’t think that kids should have to be “rushed” into faith. I don’t think most kids can get much out of religion and spirituality when they are so young. I think it would be better to introduce them to religion later, when they are more independent thinkers. The second part of the quote talking about lacking faith and trying to find faith even when he’s not sure what exactly he believes, is especially important. I think that people should be able to discover religion for themselves. People will get much more out of whatever religion they belong to when they voluntarily seek it out based on their own beliefs and values, not their parents.

Often, in our society we don’t question what is commonplace, but maybe in this instance, we should. Although it may seem radical and controversial to say that it might be more beneficial for people to be introduced to religion once they are of age to make decisions for themselves it seems like a fair way to go about it. Not only that, but I would argue that people would be far more spiritual if they were allowed the opportunity to chose their own path. Personally, when I was in 8th grade I decided I wanted to be a part of a more open and accepting branch of Christianity. So I chose to switch, and I became a much more spiritual person because of it.

I know the topic of religion is delicate, but do you think my claim; kids should be allowed to find their own pathway to religion when they are ready, is reasonable? We are all entitled to the freedom of religion but how free are we really when our parents chose what religion we belong to? Also, I mainly focused on my experience with a particular branch of Christianity so it would be great to hear any personal stories or experiences with religion from you guys. Lastly, since religion is such a touchy subject I just want to say that I hope I did not offend anyone and regardless of what religion you are a part of, or if you are atheist, it’s all good.

Commercializing a Color

It’s October, and for those that haven’t noticed the pink ribbons on everything from beauty products to fast food. It’s also Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Personally, I had never questioned all these companies supporting Breast Cancer. It’s hard to even imagine questioning something that seems so positive. After listening to an interview on WBEZ’s The Morning Shift, I began to question if the way we are commercializing and commodifying Breast Cancer is really the best way to help those suffering from this terrible disease.

One point that I found to be quite shocking was illustrated best by Tania Katan, Author of My One Night Stand With Cancer, and a two time Breast Cancer survivor. She states, “I am outraged that all too often, the pink products sold to us under the guise of “finding a cure,” or “raising awareness,” or “research” contain the very chemicals that can CAUSE cancer in the first place!”. This seems plainly wrong to me. How much can these corporations be helping those with the disease when they are part of the very reason why so many people have it in the first place?

Another point that added to this new sense of mistrust was, sometimes products that are proudly boasting the pink ribbon give no money whatsoever to any of the many charities trying to help people with Breast Cancer. In my own fridge I found a package of mushrooms that was "pinkwashed" but had no fine print saying that they were giving any portion of their profits to support breast cancer. It seems to me that these companies that just give their packaging a makeover, are giving the impression that by buying their product you are directly helping someone with Breast Cancer for the purpose of increasing their profits.

Now I realize that they are raising awareness, and the pink ribbon campaign has been one of the most successful marketing campaigns of any cause. I just wonder if it is still the best way to help the cause. Barbara Brenner is the executive director of Breast Cancer Action and was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1994. She argues, “We don't really need more awareness. The question is, what do we do now?'". Brenner goes on to say that what we need to be focusing on is better ways of detecting it in the first place and how to eliminate the things that can trigger Breast Cancer like chemicals, diet, and pollution. I think Brenner brings up a lot of good points and I would agree that the focus should be on detection, prevention and I would add better treatment, rather than a cure.

Another activist in the fight against Breast Cancer with an opposing view, is Robbie Finke. Finke is the marketing director at the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Finke argues, "Just by having this kind of information on products that touch people every day is the best public relations anyone could do. It may joggle their mind to get a mammogram or go for a clinical exam. They don't even have to buy the product and we've already sent out a positive message." I never considered that having all these pink products on the market encourages early detection.

While I think depending on corporations and pink buckets of KFC for solving Breast Cancer is problematic in a number of ways, I wonder if it's simply the best we can do. It may be that, in our consumer driven society commercialization is somewhat inevitable for addressing an issue as difficult and expensive as cancer. One thing’s for sure though, the next time I personally buy a pink candy bar I will not kid myself with the misguided notion that I just made difference in someone’s life. There’s a good chance that all I did was buy a pink candy bar, or if I’m lucky, some single digit percentage of the profits will go to a charity. To be aware of people suffering is one thing, it’s what people chose to do with that awareness that truly makes the difference.

If you would like to learn more about the non-profit Breast Cancer Action, or sign their online petition protesting chemicals linked to breast cancer in the products people use everyday, the link is posted below: http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6098/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15464

An Electric Skeptic

After flipping through the Chicago Tribune this week I was surprised to find that they had not one, not two, but three articles on electric vehicles. This surprised me because I had no idea how big this electric car movement really was. Granted I took notice to the absurd amount of Teslas that have been cruising around the north shore but I thought that was simply an isolated north shore trend. I was wrong. According to the Chicago tribune article “Charged battle over electric car stations”, 84 charging stations have been completed in the Chicagoland area with 46 more on the way. Another article by the Chicago Tribune's Robert Duffer reports that Tesla is undergoing a plan to enable electric coast-to-coast travel by the the end of the year. Musk has claimed that by 2015 he expects “98 percent of America to be within range of more than 200 superchargers planned for the U.S. and Canada”. The last article “An Electric Road Trip” reaffirms this trend by stating that, “Since it’s launch in June 2012, the [Tesla] Model S has captured 8 percent of the luxury performance market share”. Clearly, the electric car movement is gaining ground, and the U.S. government is helping it to do so.

The U.S. government is strongly incentivizing people to purchase electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are eligible for a tax credit up to $7,500, with additional incentives in several states. According to a report from the Congressional Budget Office, "the U.S. is on track to spend $7.5 billion on the rebates by 2019 with no effect on gas use or emissions".

Now one would assume that this is because the U.S. government wants to help the environment, but what if I told you there is a strong argument to show that Electric cars are not just as bad for the environment but even worse than some of their gas powered counterparts. In a recent npr broadcast, conservationist Ozzie Zehner argues this very point. He bases this argument by asking us to look at a car’s impact not simply based on gas mileage, but on their impact throughout their entire lifetime, from the manufacturing process, to the disposing of their dead batteries. One interesting point he makes says is, “American taxpayers give electric car buyer credits to buy vehicles as well as priority parking and free way lanes, even though there is really no evidence that they have done anything positive for the environment in return. It would make a lot more sense if we spent that money on infrastructure that benefits people from across the economic spectrum, such as public transit”. I think this is a great point and I would add that if the government truly wants to help the environment, they should offer a tax deduction for not owning a car. My old geography teacher Mr. Duell told me that when he was living in Japan they taxed anyone who wasn’t carpooling. I think that this could be another way that the U.S. government could reduce the number of cars on the road which would I think would have a much greater impact on the environment.

This makes me wonder if the reason behind incentivizing people to buy electric is truly focused on helping the environment. Could it be to help American car companies like Tesla and Chevy? Or could it be to decrease our dependence on foreign oil? I’m not saying that these are bad reasons I’m simply saying that like with nearly everything else our government subsidizes it seems like the main reasons why our government is supporting electric vehicles would have to be more economical than environmental.

The Board of Education Has Fun With Technology

New Trier High School has recently begun a “Mobile Learning Initiative” which basically means that many New Trier students are in courses that require that they use an Ipad to replace the vast majority of ways in which they used to learn. I happen to be one of  New Trier’s students testing out the new program and I have had three of their classes taken over by this supposedly beneficial technology. If you haven’t figured it out already, I’m not very fond of the situation one bit.

According to the "Mobile Learning Initiative"page on the New Trier website the Board of Education approved the plan for 2,300 New Trier students to be placed in Ipad courses in the 2013-2014 school year and all New Trier students for the following year. The basis for this came from a pilot program of 700 students with school mandated Ipads. They say that "students reported it changed the way in which they collaborated and learned". I found it odd that they didn't specify how many students said this but what stood out to me the most was that they said it "changed" the way they learned, but not that it helped them learn.

Another reason why New Trier says that Ipads are beneficial to learning is because they make classes "paperless". They say that since students can complete and submit every worksheet, lab, or quiz using an Ipad that this will be more benificial than just turning in a hard copy. I would argue that this is not the case. For example, when I turn in a lab for physics I don't get a graded hard copy back that I can put in my binder to review for a test down the road, I get an email giving me "feedback". This is next to useless because you can't pull up both the email and the lab at the same time. This is just one of the many ways I have found that it has hindered rather than helped my education.

This blind leap to technology by schools (and everyone else) seems to be a trend throughout America right now. An article by the New York Times addresses this very topic. Two great points were illustrated in an interview with Tom Vander Ark, the former executive director for education at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and an investor in educational technology companies. Referring to technology in the classroom Tom says, “It’s one of the three or four biggest things happening in the world today”. He goes on to state, “The data is pretty weak. It’s very difficult when we’re pressed to come up with convincing data”. Not only is this movement massive in scale but there is really not enough solid evidence to prove that it will be a success. With so many New Trier students' educations on the line I think it would have been better until there was more substantial evidence of the benefit of technology in education.

I think this topic brings up a lot of issues. One of which is the rights of students. Personally, I feel like I had very little say in all of this and think that since a school’s goal is to teach it’s students, then there should be a greater effort to ask them how the learn. Also, I think we really need to take a step back and consider the technology in our lives and if the benefits really outweigh the cons. The New York Times wrote an article in 2009 that states that the average American spends 8 hours a day staring at a screen. Is it really a good idea to try and increase this number? Is America (specifically the educational system) moving towards technology to fast? If you go to New Trier, and happen to be enrolled in an Ipad course(s), has your learning benefited because of these devices? Additionally, do you feel like the school has given you enough of a say in the issue?

The Cost of Healthy Eating

A new grocery store called "Artisanal" recently opened just down the street from my house. After stopping in and learning a little bit more about it I was thoroughly impressed by the quality of the food. All organic and local whenever possible, I could tell the owners really cared about giving you humanely raised and responsibly grown food. Being as excited as I was, I asked my mom if we could do all our shopping there and she explained that she tries to shop there as much as she can but that it is very expensive there. This response was a bit of a surprise to me and it got me thinking. If my family is hesitant to sacrifice some extra cash for organic food then how can low income families even consider eating organic food? I stopped by Artisanal today to check out the prices of their food for myself. A gallon of their organic milk costs $6.79 while a regular gallon of milk at Walgreens is $2.99. With such a difference in price it seems impossible that family's just trying to put food on the table could ever afford to spend the extra cash to buy organic food. The idea that people don't even have the choice to eat food that was ethically raised is simply unfair. Say someone really cares about animal rights, or the environment but simply can't afford to purchase the food that supports these values. I think that everyone should have the ability to be able to support the causes they believe in and I think the idea of standing up for your values is a very American concept.

Along with not being able to eat organic, low income families also have difficulty eating healthy. Dr. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University and an outspoken critic of the fast food industry, told CBS News. “People are hugely influenced by the price of food. If you don’t have any money and go into the store to buy some fresh fruits, you might decide that it’s cheaper to have a couple of fast food hamburgers.” I think this is a very good point especially when there are things like the McDonald's dollar menu specifically marketed to low income people. An add on their website reads, "Your stomach is empty – and so is your wallet. Good thing there's the Dollar Menu... a tasty way to fill up for less". Advertising is everywhere these days and when you see fast food ads that are just begging you to purchase their affordable and tasty food it’s hard for anyone to resist. In addition, many Americans simply don't have the time to prepare a healthy meal. A recent article by the Washington Post quoted a study by the Center for American Progress, “In 2010, among families with children nearly half (44.8 percent) were headed by two working parents and another one in four (26.1 percent) were headed by a single parent". When both parents are forced to work, the convenience and affordability of fast food and junk food make them appealing options.

Lastly, I’d like to briefly address the government’s role in all this. A study released this year from the U.S. Public Research Interest Group called “Apples to Twinkies” states that, “Since 1995, the government has spent $292.5 billion on agricultural subsidies, $19.2 billion of which have subsidized corn- and soy-derived junk food ingredients”. It goes on to say that, “Apples, the only fruit or vegetable to receive significant federal subsidies, garnered only $689 million over the same period”. Clearly, the government could be doing more to support affordable healthy food.

So I know this is a lot of information but what do you guys think about all this? Do you think it’s wrong that it’s so difficult for lower-income people to eat organically and healthy? What does this say about what our government values? Should the government subsidize healthy food to lower the prices? Does the government have a responsibility to support small organic farmers as well as the big corporations? Those are just some questions to think about. My main question would be do you think that anything discussed in this blog is unfair or contradicts American values, and if so what can be done about it?