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.