Homosexuality Essay Example for Free

Homosexuality Essay Homosexuality within the church is a controversial matter that is threatening to break apart the over 20-century-old institution of the church. This paper sets out to demonstrate that, Homosexuality within the church and the society is a controversial matter that is yet to be resolved. With particular emphasis with the teachings of the Catholic tradition on Homosexuality, the paper seeks to analyze how Homosexuality has for the entire history of the Catholic tradition threatened to divide the church. The paper also will take a view of Homosexuality in today’s society in a bid to compare and contrast how modern society views on Homosexuality differ from the teachings of the church and the reasons behind the church’s rather conservative approach to the Homosexuality issue. The Catholic church was founded around 2nd century at a time when church and state were inseparable and the church yielded much influence over state affairs and governance. With particular reference to Roman empire, the Catholic church in Rome came to be so powerful that church law determined state’s laws and the papacy was responsible for the running of not only the church affairs, but also of the state affairs. So much was the influence of the Catholic Church leadership on state governance that, church leaders were powerful and revered because they could exert political and religious authority. The issue of Homosexuality within the Catholic Church is not new and as early as the 5th century, there is evidence to the fact that, the issue had come up often in church doctrine and it had been discussed at the highest level of the church. Homosexuality according to the Catholic tradition is evil and not permissible. Indeed, the Catholic tradition holds that those who engage in Homosexuality should be excommunicated from the church, a punishment that is not revertible and rarely does the church leadership give audience to those viewed to be disobedient to the Catholic stance on Homosexuality. According to Catholic tradition, a union between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman is seen and therefore, it is contravention to the church teachings. As a result of the position the church has maintained for centuries, the issue of Homosexuality in the church continues to elicit emotional debates and is currently one of the most controversial issues in the Catholic Church especially the Catholic Church in USA. Rather than amend the existing church doctrine, to reflect modern society, and particularly the newfound freedom amongst the youth in America, the church continues to make key amendments to its dogmatic teachings, which continue to depict the church as old-fashioned, insensitive and non-responsive to modernity. The number of youth attending church in the USA has been found to have declined by upto 30% in the past few decades. This is reflected by the fact that, there are fewer Americans willing to take up leadership positions in the church causing a major shortage of father, nuns, etc. in the church. Although Homosexuality as an issue is not solely to blame for the current standoff, it is evidently a contributing factor to the leadership crisis the church is facing and the inability of the church to attract young people to participate in church leadership. Their lax evidence and substantial research in the causes of the church’s conservative position, which inspite of being challenged by scholars in the church and the faithfuls has remained perpetually undeterred and continues to maintain the hard position it has taken for the past centuries. In sharp contrast to the position taken by the clergy, there is growing evidence that a gay culture is slowly gaining root amongst the clergy something, which is proving to be magnanimous and one of the latest scandal in the Catholic church . This has had an impact on values that the church has continued to teach including family values that the church bases as its key argument against ratification of Homosexuality within the church. Although it is hard to say for sure how many Catholic clergy are involved in Homosexuality, going by the number of those who come out in the open and defiantly state their support of Homosexuality, it is clear that there are significant numbers of clergy engaging in Homosexual practices, promoting Homosexuality as well as openly or silently advocating for Homosexuality . This has left the church leadership in a dilemma as it has become very difficult for a common ground to be struck between proponents and opponents of Homosexuality in the church. What started as deliberations to examine how the church could respond to Homosexuality and its growing influence in the face of organized homosexual groups, which started getting rights to marriage as well as other rights, guarding from discrimination has put the Catholic church especially in the USA at crossroads. As a result of the raging debate, the media sought to focus attention on the issue of Homosexuality and how the church was responding to it leading to numerous reports accusing cardinals in the USA of engaging in Homosexuality. This has further been complicated by the fact that whenever Homosexuality debate has come up, the issue of pedophilia has come up . This has further complicated the Homosexual debate in that it gives the Homosexual debate a negative image in the public given that pedophilia is a sensitive issue equitable to crime. Homosexuality in the Catholic Church is so complex that, the independence given to cardinals has made it virtually impossible even for victims of Homosexuality perpetrated by the clergy to successfully wage complaints. For instance, clergy collaborate with their superiors to perpetrate Homosexual behaviour to young boys and instead of such clergy being punished when the matter comes out in the open, it is often the victims and their families who suffer most. Indeed, in many cases, members of the church are more likely to quit church because the only way out is to avoid confrontation with the church. This has further been complicated by the fact that, the church has been rather unwilling to acknowledge that Homosexuality is a problem within the church something which means that whenever such accusations are raised against the church leadership, the church is less willing or not devoted to dealing with the problem of Homosexuality. In most cases, the ‘offenders’ receive light punishments such as transfer and rarely has any meaningful punishment been referred against clergy by the church. This indifference from the church leadership has continued to taint the church’s image especially considering that there is a general lack of understanding and appreciation of Homosexuality amongst church faithfuls. That the Catholic Church traditionally believes Homosexuality is a sin, is evidenced by the constant pleas and calls for repentance the church sends out to self-confessed Homosexuals. Indeed, there is a clear difference between Homosexuality as practiced in the church and Homosexuality as practiced in the society. The matter is further complicated by the fact that, traditional Catholic beliefs do not allow members of clergy to marry or engage in sexual intercourse leave alone Homosexuality. Therefore, Homosexuality in the church circles is viewed as clerical abuse and is treated as such. There is enough evidence towards the fact that, the church is willing to fight on and totally ban Homosexuality in the church and especially within the clergy. However, the church is faced with a dilemma in that, it does not support the concept of Homosexuality. As such, the church leadership is in a state of denial, which seeks to present the church as devoid of Homosexuality but at the same time, wants to fight incidences of Homosexuality if and when reported. Although in some cases those accused of Homosexuality have been forced to resign, such calls come from the faithful and tend to be grounded on threats of charges and not as a contradiction of traditional teachings or church dogma considering that the church is reluctant to acknowledge that even within its clergy the problem of Homosexuality is rife. Outside the US, resistance to Homosexuality in the church is higher compared to US where in some cases, some archdioceses have the leeway to choose whether to work with Homosexuals or not. This is bringing a new dimension into the Homosexuality debate in regard to celibacy and a call for further scholarly interpretation of celibacy as understood in the Catholic Church . It is not surprising that the issue of Homosexuality in the church has never been comprehensively dealt with despite the fact that, Homosexuality in the church has been practiced since the 1970s upto present and evidently with the knowledge of the church leadership . Another dimension that the Homosexuality debate has taken in the church is questioning of how effectively Homosexual clergy are capable of guiding the faithful. The fact that Homosexuality is still considered by many Catholics as sin and violation of their traditional beliefs brings a dilemma to the clergy who are Homosexuals and is a common cause of conflicts. This has led many to question the ability of those who violate church teachings to lead the faithfuls who hold different points of view on Homosexuality. Indeed, this has brought about an ethical dimension to the Homosexuality debate in the church. While the proponents of Homosexuality call for relaxation of traditional teachings on celibacy, opponents of Homosexuality call for chastity and upholding of traditional teachings on sexuality as handed down by generations . Evidently, Homosexuality in the church has started to take a new dimension, that of civil liberties and civil rights. In this regard, there are those who want to bring the human rights issue into the Homosexuality debate and look at the church’s stance on Homosexuality as a violation of civil liberties and civil rights. This dimension has been criticized due to the fact that, the church is an independent institution whose doctrine is out of state control and therefore, compelling the church to accept Homosexuality as an attempt to guarantee civil liberties and civil rights, has in the past failed to yield into results. Therefore, while some liberals view Homosexuality as an orientation and something to be left to the choice of an individual, others view the church and indeed the Christian faith as dominant when it comes to individual choices and therefore, this implies that once one accepts membership into the church, individualism is less important and collectivity is emphasized. If what is happening in other denominations such as Evangelicals and Anglicans is anything to go by, Homosexuality in the church will continue to be a contentious issue and the solution lies in the granting of independence to churches to make individual decisions on how to conduct the Homosexuality debate. Indeed, nothing has in the recent history of the church been so hard to strike a common position on, as has been with the case of Homosexuality. Efforts by the church to transform Homosexuals through methods such as therapy in form of Bible teachings, have failed and that too has been considered as interference in civil liberties and civil rights of individuals. Therefore, asking homosexuals to change their sexual orientation has greatly failed and it seems that the homosexuals are gaining ground in the church and are swelling in numbers. If current estimates of homosexuals in the church today are anything to go by, the Catholic Church may find it difficult to contain the ‘homosexual movement’ and it is the high time that a multidimensional approach to the Homosexual debate is adapted with an aim of bringing together conservatives and liberals to strike a common ground. Even the involvement of scriptural interpretation has failed to yield into meaningful results as different groups have interpreted the issue differently. Therefore, the Biblical standpoint has ceased to be what guides the debate on Homosexuality and the church and evidently civil rights and civil liberties dimension together with emotive dimension is what is taking prominence in the debate about Homosexuality in the church. In conclusion, the view of Homosexuality in the contemporary society is as controversial as it is the case in the church. However, since the moral standards in the contemporary society compared to the moral standards set by the church are significantly different, homosexuals have received insignificant resistance in the civil society than has been the case in the church. That modernity has influenced the way modern society has welcomed Homosexuality is for sure but the teachings of the church have failed to incorporate the views of the same society that it purports to serve. This has resulted into a conflict that persists between the church and the modern society something, which will be resolved when the church will amend its teachings to reflect the modern society standpoint. There is a need for more scholarly studies geared towards establishing a common ground between opponents and proponents of Homosexuality with a view of diffusing the standoff between those who support a more tolerant church position on Homosexuality and those who are opposed to a more inclusive position on Homosexuality in connection to the church. There is a need for the Catholic Church to review its training programs for clergies in a bid to deal with the problem of clergy engaging in abusive behaviour that has resulted into conflict of interest and lack of harmony in the church. It is no doubt that, the society expects the church to be a model in as far as moral standards are concerned, and therefore, when clergy are accused of engaging in Homosexuality, which is in the first place against the official position of the church, doubts arise about the church’s teachings on Homosexuality.

Films and Media Misrepresenting Race Essay -- Matrix Racism Blacks Ess

Films and Media Misrepresenting Race abstract: In many ways technology makes access to academic work, research and employment easier and faster. However, I am concerned that technology is too often chosen over humanity. Historically,representations of African Americans in technological media tend to value "white" bodies at the expense of Black bodies (Stam and Spence, 1983). Further, recent studies show (Zickmund 2000), in fact, the ways in which some World Wide Web sites make it easier for hate groups to spread their misinformation, contributing to the devaluation of black bodies in technological media. Together, these media representations can be understood in terms of a digital devide between technological "haves" and "have-nots". Film and new media play integral roles in misrepresenting race. The film,The Matrix, reflects these problematic representations of race. Yet it provides critical metaphors for African Americans who contend that we are controlled by beings other than ourselves, and that our bodies must first b e filtered through white bodies to be considered valuable. introduction The 1999 movie The Matrix is considerably more than entertainment for me. It experiments with the idea that we are all pawns of other beings. The Matrix leads the viewer into a world where humans are controlled by secret mechanical forces wishing to enslave humanity. Through critical thinking the humans in The Matrix are able to break the chains of bondage and reclaim their divine nature. Like the characters in The Matrix, I have often felt that I was trapped in an alternate reality, that everyone else around me is trapped as well, pawns in a game, and more importantly, I wonder what would happen if we resisted... ...e Spence, "Colonialism, Racism, and Representation: An Introduction," from Braudy, Leo and Cohen, Marshall, eds. Film Theory and Criticism 5th. ed. (New York : Oxford University Press,1999) Crane, David, "In Medias Race," from Kolko, Nakamura, Rodman, eds., Race In Cyberspace (New York: Routledge,2000) Marx, Leo, "Information Technology in Historical Perspective," from High Technology and Low-Income Communities (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999) Mitchell, William, "The City of Bits Hypothesis", in High Technology and Low-Income Communities (Cambridge,MIT Press, 1999) Latimer, Christopher P. "New York State Forum for Information Resource Management Rockefeller Institute of Government". (Albany, NY:NYSFIRM, 2001) Zickmund, Susan "Approaching The Radical Other: the Discursive culture of Cyberhate" from the Cyberculture Reader (London/New York: Routhledge,2000)

Augustine on creation and Aquinas on the existence of God Essay

In Augustine’s writing, The Confessions, he philosophically attempts to answer the problems that arise within religion, specifically in regards to Judeo Christian beliefs, pertaining to God, time, and creation. Augustine first addresses the belief that God created everything. He tries to provide a coherent explanation for his claim that God’s ex-nihilo (â€Å"out of nothing†) creation of the Earth is a sound statement, given that God created everything, and with it time. Thus, the notion of time never existed before its very point of creation. However, given that God created everything, and thus the universe, what was God doing before the universe’s creation that caused him to decide to create it or that it was now necessary as opposed to before. Furthermore, if God even had to make the decision whether or not the universe’s existence was necessary, making him arbitrary, wouldn’t that inherently falsify the claim that God is a perfect being (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) and thus is immutable. Augustine objects this claim by stating that God is eternal, in that he is timeless, and so exists outside the realm of time. He is therefore not bound (or defined) by any temporal concept. So, when faced with the problem of what God was doing before he created the universe, Augustine simply claims it is an illogical question. He justifies that if one accepts the belief that God is eternal and created everything, than one can’t logically ask what God was doing at a certain point before the creation of time itself, as it was not yet in existence. Augustine continues the debate on time, by calling its very existence into question. Augustine questions the commonly accepted notion of time by providing his theory of â€Å"presentism,† which basically reduces time into only the present tense. Augustine claims that when people talk in terms of the past, present, and future they’re only really talking about various forms of the present. Augustine tries to explain the various complications that arise when trying to determine the duration of present time. It is difficult to compare two different measurements of time if each period of â€Å"present† time given can be reduced into a minute instance of time that quickly disappears. So, one cannot measure something that has happened, because once it is in the past, it no longer exists. Augustine accepts that their appears to be an irrational aspect of presentism, in that by accepting the present as the only form of time, one would then seemingly have to agree that it wouldn’t make sense to refer to any moment of time occurring in either the past or the future. Augustine rationalizes any reference to the past, by defining it as the minds ability to recall imprinted memories of images left in the mind through the medium of one’s senses. Similarly, the foreseeing of future events is merely the act of prediction based off of things that were already present or previously seen (i.e. the assertion that the sun will rise tomorrow is only based on one’s own previous experience of having already watched the sun rise). Augustine acknowledges the apparent existence of past and future events, and answers the discrepancy by providing alternate terms to use in place of the existing tenses, which are the present of past things, the present of present things, and the present of future things. Furthermore, he redefines the definitions of his terms to mean that the present of past things is memory, the present of present things is attention, and the present of future things is expectation. Augustine continues the problem of measuring time, by recognizing that it would be impossible to measure something, which is not yet real, travels through what doesn’t occupy space, only to become something that is no longer real. He first tries to use the notion that time can be measured in relation to a corporeal object, such as the sun (i.e. a day). Yet, this method is rejected, because if one were to change the time it takes for the sun to rotate the Earth, the time allotted to a day would still remain the same, even if the sun were to set multiple times within a â€Å"days† time frame. Thus, he states that if the motion of any corporeal object is one thing, but the standard in which we measure it is another, time can not based off of any movement of a corporeal object. He then replaces this method of measurement with the example of sound, explaining that because we can measure time based on our voice, surely we can measure any interval of time based off any beginning and end. However, he claims that when measuring any form of sound, we are only measuring the impression the sound left on the mind, and thus are only measuring the impression left, not the time itself. Augustine then deduces that time is only produced from memories of impressions. Thus, time is nothing more than a manmade phenomenon that exists only within the realm of the human mind. He explains that this phenomenon exists within the mind in three different forms of reality. The three realities of the mind are comprised of when the mind expects, attends, or remembers. In other words, that what the mind expects, passes by way of what it attends, into being what it remembers. Furthermore, it is only our attention that endures, through which what is still to be makes its way into the state of where it is no more. Therefore, our attention is continually present, as the future is being passed through the present and changes into the past. Augustine concludes that it is this â€Å"tension† or flow that constitutes time, in that time can only be understood in terms of a manmade psychological phenomenon. For Augustine, his philosophical conclusion that time doesn’t exist in any tangible way but is merely a product of the human mind, justifies the claim that God’s existence is outside the realm of human’s perception of time. Augustine expects that from the acceptance of this notion of time, God’s exemption from time in no way means that he is deficient or more limited than humans in any aspect, but that conversely, he is more powerful. Aquinas Aquinas argues the problem of God’s existence in three ways: First, he addresses whether or not the existence of God is self-evident, second, whether or not his existence can be demonstrated and, finally, whether or not God actually exists. In addressing the issue of whether or not God’s existence is self-evident, Aquinas provides three objections in support of the argument. However, the objections are fundamentally flawed based on the premise that one can intellectually declare God doesn’t exist. However, in response, Aquinas counters this notion by redefining the ways in which something can be self-evident into two different categories. He says something can be self-evident in itself and not to us or both itself and us. Therefore, some concepts involving incorporeal substances can only be learned. Also, because God is His own existence, the proposition is no longer one that is self-evident. Thus, God’s self-evident existence can only be proven through demonstrating the natural things known to us, such as his affects; or, it is simply a prima fascie presumption. Aquinas provides the objections to his assertion, which accepts the fact that not everyone defines happiness or God in the same ways, or that Primal Truths are self-evident. Aquinas then discusses whether or not God’s existence can be proven by demonstration. He provides the objection that it can’t, on the fact that God’s existence is based entirely on faith, and that His essence can only be defined in terms of what He is not. Lastly, that no cause can be demonstrated by an affect that isn’t proportional. Aquinas answers, saying that God’s existence can be demonstrated in two ways. The first being through a priori methods, in which knowledge can be obtained without the need of experience, as seen with Anslem’s Ontological argument which proves the existence of God using a definition. The second way, which for Aquinas is the only legitimate way, is through a posteriori methods, in which any knowledge used must be gained through experience. Aquinas adheres to Aristotelian ideas, claiming that there is nothing in the intellect that didn’t once exist in the senses, and thus rejects that God’s existence could be demonstrated through any means other than those acquired through experience. For Aquinas, every effect must be the result of an inherent cause. So, one can prove God’s existence to be self-evident by demonstrating his existence based off the effects he produces. Aquinas continues by claiming that nothing prevents a man from understanding evidence demonstrated scientifically. Therefore, because God can be defined and proven in terms of his effects, we can conclude that God’s existence can be demonstrated. In order to attack the objections to the next question of whether or not God exists, Aquinas provides the proof of God’s existence with, The First Way, which is one of five. The First Way is the most visible and is based of the a posteriori argument of motion. Aquinas assumes that everyone can accept that within the world some things are in motion (as they can be observed), and that a thing’s motion has to have been caused by something other than itself. In other words, except something in motion already in a state of actuality, no motion can be converted from potentiality to actuality without the help of some outside source. Thus, Aquinas is influenced by the Aristotelian view of change, which is based of the assumption that a substance, defined as being a particular thing with a natural unity that persists yet changes in predictable ways, experiences two different forms of change: accidental and substantial. Accidental change occurs when a substance either loses an accidental form and gains another or gains a form without losing another (i.e. cutting one’s hair). Substantial change is the result of something that turns into a whole new being (i.e. a caterpillar into a butterfly). Thus, something that is potentially something else can’t simultaneously be that thing in actuality at the same time. For instance water, which is actually a liquid but potentially ice, cannot change its form into being ice without something acting upon it. Furthermore, building upon Aristotle’s views of change, Aquinas asserts that the same rule governing change can also be applied to the argument of movement. Therefore, if in accordance with the same rule, something in motion cannot simultaneously be both the mover and moved, since something in motion must be put in motion by something other than itself. Thus, in order to find what caused the first movement to occur, one would need to trace the seminal causes of such movement back to, in effect, infinity. However, Aquinas claims it’s illogical to accept that the initial force could only be defined in relation to an infinite chain of causes. Consequently, the only sound conclusion would have to include the existence of a first mover, such as something along the lines of an unmoved mover. For Aquinas, the existence of an unmoved mover/unchanged changer proves the existence of a force that could only be God. Aquinas concludes that only God could be the force behind the existence of some unmoved mover, if motion is created in two different ways. The first is exemplified by the example of some â€Å"X† (i.e. a leg) moving some â€Å"Y† (i.e. a ball). So, that in this first example, even though â€Å"X† causes the movement of â€Å"Y,† it also follows that â€Å"X† is moving too. Subsequently, Aquinas concludes that given the notion that any â€Å"X† which is able to cause â€Å"Y† to move, while at the same time able to remain motionless, could only be the result of a being â€Å"X† equivalent to a much-elevated force that uniquely has to be God.

100 Spanish Words You Should Know

Obviously, youre not going to be able to say everything you want to say with only 100 Spanish words — although you could do surprisingly well with fewer than 1,000. But if you can learn these 100 words and understand how theyre used, youll be a long way toward being able to communicate freely in Spanish. Definitions below are for quick reference; all the words can be translated in additional ways. Top 100 Spanish Words 1. gracias (thanks)2. ser (be)3. a (to)4. ir (to go)5. estar (to be)6. bueno (good)7. de (of, from)8. su (your, her, his, their)9. hacer (to do, to make)10. amigo (friend)11. por favor (please)12. no (no)13. en (on, in)14. haber (to have as an auxiliary verb)15. tener (to have, to possess)16. un, uno, una (a, one)17. ahora (now)18. y (and)19. que, quà © (that, what)20. por (for, by)21. amar (to love)22. quià ©n (who)23. para (for, to)24. venir (to come)25. porque (because)26. el, la, los, las (the)27. antes (before)28. mà ¡s (more)29. bien (well as an adverb)30. aquà ­, allà ­ (here, there)31. querer (to want, to love)32. hola (hello)33. tà º (you)34. poder (to be able)35. gustar (to be pleasing)36. poner (to put)37. casi (almost)38. saber (to know)39. como (like, as)40. donde (where)41. dar (to give)42. pero (but)43. se (itself, herself, himself, themselves)44. mucho (much)45. nuevo (new)46. cuando (when)47. chico, chica (boy, girl)48. entender (to understand)49. si (if)50.  o (or)51. feliz (happy)52. todo (all, every)53. mismo (same)54. muy (very)55. nunca (never)56. yo, me (I, me)57. sà ­ (yes)58. grande, gran  (big, great)59. deber (to owe, should)60. usted (you)61. bajo (low, under)62. otro (other)63. salir (to leave)64. hora (hour; see also lesson on telling time)65. desde (from)66. ver (to see)67. malo, mal (bad)68. pensar (to think)69. hasta (until)70. tanto, tan (used in making comparisons)71. entre (between, among)72. durante (during)73. llevar (to wear, to carry)74. siempre (always)75. empezar (to begin)76. à ©l, ella, ellos, ellas (he, she, they)77. leer (to read)78. cosa (thing)79. sacar (to take out, to remove)80. conocer (to know)81. primero (first)82. andar (to walk)83. sobre (over, about)84. echar (to throw)85. sin (without)86. decir (to say)87. trabajar (to work)88. nosotros (we, us)89. tambià ©n (also)90. adià ³s (goodbye)91. comer (to eat)92. triste (sad)93. paà ­s (country)94. escuchar (to listen, to listen to)95. hombre (man )96. mujer (woman)97. le (indirect-object pronoun)98. creer (to believe, to think)99. encontrar (to find)100. beber (to drink) And a Few More Here are some other words that very well could have made the list: 101. hablar (to speak)102. ese, esa (demonstrative that; also see the demonstrative pronouns)103. baà ±o (bathroom)104. despuà ©s (afterwards, later)105. gente (people)106. ciudad (city)106. sentir (to feel)107. llegar (to arrive)108. pequeà ±o (small)109. escribir (to write)110. aà ±o (year)111. menos (minus, except)112. lo (various uses)113. cual (that, which)114. este, esta (this)115. dejar (to leave)116. parte (part)117. nada (nothing)118.  cada (each)119. seguir (to continue, to follow)120. partir (to divide)121. ya (still, already)122. parecer (to seem)