|
|
|
| A Larger View |
|
A Bi-Monthly Newsletter of the Inner Outer Partnership |
| Volume VI Edition 3 |
May/June |
2001 |
The Faith Based Initiative:
The Right Thing For The Wrong Reason?
Religious institutions are supposed to safeguard, if not help us define,
our moral values. They are supposed to guide us to feed the hungry, shelter
the homeless and generally treat others as we would like to be treated. Why
shouldn't they be more involved in helping those in need, in the delivery
of those social programs that are not only necessary but are a hallmark
of a civilized society? Why shouldn't they be instrumental in reducing
inequalities and bringing social justice to a world much in need of it? Who
better, one might ask?
In a country such as the United States, where the distinction between
church and state is institutionalized not only through its constitution but
through its history, its lore and its culture, the mere idea of faith
based groups delivering social services is at the very least thought
provoking. Indeed, President Bush's initiative to have religious group more
involved has raised comments from both sides of the political spectrum. On
the right, there are those concerned that the initiative would legitimize
those they deem not sufficiently worthy; on the left, those who fear the
erosion of a principle that has served to preserve religious freedom. And
in between lies a range of pros and cons which have resulted in the White
House proceeding in a more subdued way than it had planned, even
considering postponing aspects of the initiative until next year.
On the face of it, it would seem that as long as the concerns of both
right and left can be protected, that going ahead with such a policy would
only enrich a society whose social services have been drastically
undercut by politics and rhetoric. But there's more to issues than the face
of them, there's the origins and the why.
The idea of faith based groups being used in the delivery of social
services was given prominence by people who, like author and activist
Marvin Olasky , former head of the Center For Effective Compassion, believe
in doing what is possible to reduce the role of government; people whose
philosophy is informed by the notion that the private or quasi- private
sector can be more efficient. The idea was also supported by Christian
groups in hopes of furthering their agenda and promoting their vision of
uniting the religious and the secular in their march towards a Christian
nation. Benevolent as it may be in the context of their beliefs, the
initiative would presumably attract government moneys, apparently
providing a means to more effectively deliver their message in a way
compatible with their goals.
It stands to reason, therefore, that before making up our mind on
how we stand on the faith based initiative we ought to ponder the origins
of the idea. In supporting it do we legitimize the right thing for the
wrong reason? Similarly, in opposing it, which right are we upholding?
Bullying: The End In Sight
It's taken recent tragedies in Santee, California and Columbine,
Colorado, where bullying appears to be a motivating factor for disturbed
youngsters to shoot their classmates, for many educators to come to grip
with the idea that bullying is not an inevitable part of childhood but has
become a problem with serious consequences. The National Education
Association estimates that each day, nationwide, 160,000 students stay
home for fear of being bullied at school. Researchers now know that victims
of bullying are more likely to be depressed, withdrawn and become more
aggressive. They're also more likely to do poorly in school. And the harm
doesn't stop there. Swedish studies indicate that it continues in later
years.
In Norway bullying prevention programs are in every school following
bullying victims killing themselves some ten years ago. Dan Olweus,
professor of psychology at Norways University of Bergen, says that to be
spared this kind of humiliating, degrading treatment, which makes life
miserable for thousands and thousands of young people for no good reason,
is really a fundamental democratic human right. Sweden, England and Wales
also have general anti-bullying policies.
In most schools in the United States hundred of youngsters are thrown
together in a playground with very little supervision. Researchers point
out that at a time where youngsters are discovering and exploring who they
are and vying for social status, this setting is ripe for certain
inequalities to be exploited. Experts say that increased supervision by
trained personnel is a must to the success of prevention programs. In
California, a proposed bill, AB 79, would require schools to have bullying
prevention and conflict resolution programs as part of their safety plans,
another try since the governor vetoed a measure funding such programs
last year. While Olweus' program is far more inclusive, it is to be noted
that several smaller scale efforts have brought results.
In South Carolina where supervision was combined with such activities
as conferences with parents and role playing in the classroom, the program
yielded success in other areas as well. It reduced truancy, vandalism,
fighting, alcohol abuse and students reported enjoying going to school
more. Similar programs are now being put in place in some schools in
Massachusetts, Maine, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Bullying may not be a problem we can eradicate overnight, but one we
can drastically alter relatively quickly. In diminishing it, we would not
only alleviate the plight of so many of its victims, but mostly facilitate
the making of compassionate responsible adults.
The Right To Clean Water
Purifying water is easy and relatively inexpensive. Why then are there
more than 1 billion people without access to this basic necessity? The
reasons may be caught in the politics of a still evolving world order and
the remedies still short of implementation, but certain facts from the
World Health Organization's recent report are quite clear:
- Almost three and half million deaths each year could be prevented by
better sanitation and better supplies.
- The worlds poor pay more for their water than do the rich, sometimes as
much as 20% of their income. They also face greater risks of waterborne
illnesses.
- In 1990, 1.1 billion people had no access to improved water, even when
that access meant only a covered well. In 2000 the number was still the
same.
- In 1990, 2.4 billion people had no basic sanitation. The number was
still the same in 2000.
- The lack of clean water not only increases diseases, it yokes many
women and children to poverty . Since spending time finding and carrying
water can be so demanding, the lack of water usually deprives women of
jobs and children of education.
As the world's population becomes more urbanized, climate changes
threaten increased flooding, possibly bringing tropical diseases to a
greater number of those already without sanitation and clean water.
From the comfort of our own homes, it seems a far away problem, and
yet if we are all part of the same planet, can we allow ourselves to
tolerate so many going without this necessity when easy remedies are
within reach? Ought it not to be a right for all.
Web Site Of Interest: www.gcmhp.net
Equalizing Basic Needs
The mental health aspects of occupied territories are too often
neglected. As such this web site in the Gaza strip addressing the needs of
Palestinians is all the more essential. The citizens of Israel who are
also affected by the continuing turmoil in the Middle East, belong to a
sovereign state with institutions and an established system of health care
delivery. In Gaza where no such institutionalized system yet exists, a
Palestinian psychiatrist, Eyad Sarraj, founded the Gaza Community Mental
Health Program (gcmhp) in 1990 as a means to help Palestinians cope with
the then Intifada. The need continued and so did the program.
Sarraj believes in nonviolence and struggles for Palestinians to leave
guns and stones and meet Israelis with flowers and candles. However
idealistic his view may be, his work is as practical and useful as
conditions allow. gcmhc works to not only deliver mental health services to
the citizens of the region through four clinics, where those who need help
can call or come in, it also trains people to handle the mental health
problems of those living under many hardships and conducts research on
these issues as well. In addition, a women's empowerment effort
specifically targets the unique problems Gaza women face.
At the time of this writing the web site indicated that due to
increased Israeli restrictions the work of the clinics had to stop. People
were not able to go to work and patients unable to go to the clinics. Still
the web site, like the program and its founder, is imbued with
nationalist fervor. In fact it posts a letter by Nelson Mandela to Thomas
Friedman of the New York Times in reply to one of his recent columns
critical of Palestinians.
Need is not altered by social and political cleavages. The basic
needs of Palestinians are no different from those of Israelis, which
makes the work of these clinics truly laudable.
To Ponder On
"...Life is going up until you are burned by flames. Life is an
accomplishment and each moment has a meaning and you must use it. Life is
given to you like a flat piece of land and everything has to be done. I
hope that when I am finished, my piece of land will be a beautiful garden,
so there is a lot of work."
Actress Jeanne Moreau in a recent New York Times
interview
"Roots creep underground everywhere and make a firm foundation. Shoots seem
very weak, but to reach the light they can break open brick walls. Imagine
that the brick walls are all the problems we have inflicted on our planet.
Hundreds and thousands of roots and shoots, hundreds and thousands of young
people around the world, can break through these walls. You can change the
world."
Anthropologist Jane Goodall
|
|
