A Question of Social Justice - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2676 Downloads: 7 Date added: 2019/04/08 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Social Justice Essay Did you like this example? Only thing we have to fear is fear itself FDR in his inaugural speech in March 1933 was alerting the nation that fear was making things worse. Fear is such an incredible force, it has the power to bring people to their knees, paralyze some from moving at all, and make people run for safety due to some perceived threat to their well-being or way of life. Such is the power of fear that it can make grown men and women cower and seek to create borders around all that they hold dear. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Question of Social Justice" essay for you Create order Unfortunately, this can especially be damaging when those who profess to have a relationship with Jesus Christ use fear as a means to justify violations of justice or to attack others within the Christian community. Fear often can pit us against those we profess to love. Fear can take normally rational people into the abyss of anxiety and make them utilize weapons they would generally not in order to avoid changing, to maintain comfort, and often makes situations worse by creating unneeded/unwarranted conflict. It is in a stance of fear where Evangelical Christians find themselves with the topic of social justice. So much so that as recent as September 2018 a group of prominent Evangelical Christian men authored and published a statement https://statementonsocialjustice.com/ in order to take a stand against the evil of social justice. These men believe that social justice is corrupting the Gospel of Christ and is an attack on His church. They felt so passionate about this new obsession a growing number of believers have and how much of threat it is to the church/gospel that they issued a 14 point statement to debunk it. As one of the writers, Tom Ascol, wrote in a September 4, 2018 blog post; we determined to make a public stand together in hopes of warning about the dangers we see in some of what is being promoted in the name of social justice. This public stand comes at an interesting time in our history not only do we currently have a nationalistic, racist, and xenophobic president (he who must not be named) that was overwhelmingly voted for and continues to be supported by White evangelical Christians (80%), the rise of hate crimes and police brutality against people of color is rising at alarming numbers . Not to mention that The Gospel Coalition held a huge MLK 50 celebration/conference where many evangelicals called out the church for supporting white supremacy and ignoring issues of race the month before the statement was released. For these men the time seemed ripe for a broad sweeping indictment against social justice. A combination of what seems like righteous indignation and overwhelming fear that Christians were being led away from fundamental Christianity that is overwhelmingly based on White theology. The fear of socialism is pretty evident throughout the statement. Socialism in the sense that equality is far more important than be united in Christ. That political socialism is creeping into the church and the language being used by many Christians doing justice work is creating attacks on the oneness of the church and making believers turn from God to humanism. There is also a rise among many evangelicals who are questioning issues of race especially in stances of police brutality, which I believe can traced back to the killing of Mike Brown and Ferguson. The statement reads like a cautionary tale where the church needs to be protected or else things will fall apart and the church will fall victim to secular culture. When describing what this final project was all about, this declaration stuck out to me Write about what pisses you off it made me laugh and exclaim; there isnt enough paper in the world for me to write about what pisses me off. Snark is a gift and it should never go to waste. As this assignments deadline looms, I found that the thing that has been pissing me off the most lately and most especially this first semester of grad school is evangelical Christianity and its unwillingness to come together over issues of justice, mercy and grace. Over the past two years my place of employment has come under attack for creating spaces to talk about injustice, racism, and sexism. Many were accused (myself included) of making issues where none exist. Some individuals were completely roasted online by colleagues and students for creating divisions by calling out injustice and race issues. One would think at a Christian higher education institution that these issues would be welcomed and openly e ngaged unfortunately no. The situation is so out of hand that using the term social justice is equivalent to swearing on the campus. Some staff and faculty are so adamant that social justice is not a gospel issue that they openly bad mouth others who advocate for it. The board even got involved at one point and ultimately decided to axe our president for his diversity stances. There is also the situation of my former church which I mentioned in my race workshop paper and how it was the impetus for me leaving that church. I have been wounded and deeply traumatized by the negative reactions to social justice, race, equality, and feminism so that when the statement was released on September 5, I was not at all surprised but deeply grieved. The statement made me revisit all the hurt/anger of the past two years in a fresh way it was raw and ugly. Im utterly disgusted and deeply saddened by this statement as it fails to acknowledge that many devout/sincere followers of Christ see justice work as an outpouring of l ove. The love so freely given by God and his redemptive work. Many understand the commands to love God and love people as not only a model for life but a mandate to work for justice. So, that is why the statement pisses me off, as to why it is a justice issue this statement is a direct violation of the principles of Human Dignity, The Common Good, Solidarity (virtue and principle) and it is based on a reductionist view of Gospel. Within Christianity, statements like this are nothing new throughout history, Christians have come together to scrutinize and respond to perceived threats to the faith. These are designed to address cultural shifts, societal pressures on the church, and answer scripturally to these so called threats. Many are well intentioned and address real issues, though not all hit the mark correctly as they will create divisions that are not entirely necessary. They can also be distractions, the energy and time used to craft such statements could be used elsewhere in helping the poor, the disenfranchised, victims of hate crimes, fighting systemic injustices, or simply creating healthy/loving communities. This statement presents a truncated Gospel, one that reduces the Gospel to just salvation. It does not take into account the words and actions of Jesus in the New Testament. It reduces the work of Christ to just being the means of reconciliation with God, the eraser of sins (personal sins) it does not take into account that Jesus came to bring about the Kingdom of God. In the book of Mark, Jesus preaches about the kingdom of God, which is really the good news. In the book of Luke (4:18-19) , Jesus makes this proclamation: The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lords favor. Jesus went to synagogues where ever he travel to preach this message, which often was not well received by the Jewish leaders of the day. This is the true richness of the Gospel and like many in Jesus day, we want to change the message and perhaps kill the messenger. Jesus message is not just a way to receive salvation, it is a way to live life. Thinking through this statement, it seems to me that the authors of this statement are modern day Pharisees. Perhaps that is too harsh a criticism of these men and their intentions or maybe it is not harsh enough. Jesus even warns the Pharisees of his day in Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. This statement was not only written exclusively by men, but they are also all white men there is no inclusion of Christians of color or women (its like we dont matter). Not only does it uphold the patriarchy of our day, it is fairly racist in its terminology by trying to uphold the standards of white supremacy (read culture affirmation) and it is political in tone though the authors try to deny this. The statement also reeks of privilege as Tom Ascol puts it, On June 19 of this year I had the privilege of meeting in the iconic Herbs House coffee sh op in Dallas with 13 other men to discuss our common concerns about some teachings and practices being advocated in the name of social justice. We had never been in a room together but all accepted the invitation of Josh Buice, who was aware that we had similar perspectives on this growing movement . All of these had never been in a room together but knew enough about the threat to their comfort, privilege, and supremacy they could craft such a statement. At first read of this statement, I thought to myself, just ignore it but at this time there are over 10,000 signatures on it and that just gnaws at my soul. There was a slight arrogance in me that wanted to rip it up theologically point by point but after much thought, that didnt seem like the wisest use of my time or yours. Plus, I do not wholly disagree with all the affirmations in this statement. There is some good stuff in there that I can get fully back like the affirmations in Imago Dei, Scripture, Justice, and Salvation sections though we deny areas are not something I can support. This statement takes much for granted, for instance no terms are defined not even social justice. The authors throw words like intersectionality, radical feminism, critical race theory, privilege, relativism, authentic justice, and even heresy without taking the time to define what those words mean. They just assume everyone who reads this will understand what they are saying but those words are loaded with meaning and are used differently by Christians and non-Christians. It astonishes me that educated people even signed this document before asking questions about the meaning behind what they authors intended. The very thing they are trying to protect the church from, is not even remotely defined in the statement. From that perspective this is a weak stance to take and perhaps they should have taken more time to craft their proclamation. What is dangerous in this statement is the supposition that getting the right doctrine, will then set everything else straight. That if you affirm that racism, misogyny, classism, and injustice are sins against God and the oneness of the church, then there wont be problems these things will somehow magically disappear. It takes for granted the process of sanctification, the fact that we are humans prone to mistakes, free will, and ego/pride. Simply because you believe wholly in the redemptive work of Christ and your identity is in Him, does not automatically mean one wont be racist, sexist, classist, and will be completely motivated to do justice. One just need look to the Apostle Peter and know that having a relationship with Jesus does not erase the issues we struggle with, the biases we have, and the pride within us. Not only did this man walk with Jesus, serve with Him, and have access to Him, Peter was also a hot head, a liar, and a racist. The scripture recounts many times wher e Peter messed up from the time he tried to tell Jesus he wasnt going to die, to cutting off a mans ear, denying he knew Jesus (three times) and then to being rebuked by Apostle Paul for treating Jews above gentiles. Perhaps an unintended consequence of this statement is that one could read it, agree with it, sign it and go on their merry way. It does nothing to motivate those that agree with it do to change anything about how they live. The status quo can remain, you can believe in Jesus, the Scriptures, and in the church but do nothing for the poor, abstain from changing/dismantling systemic evil, and criticize those who do justice work. Christians throughout history have been well intentioned, loved Jesus, and wanted to live their lives for God but didnt do anything to stop slavery, genocide, wanted to stop the suffrage movement, upheld Jim Crow laws, and wanted nothing to do with the civil rights movement. It seems that all of these people would have been fine signing this statement since one can still be a part of the church and change nothing no rocking the boat here. Interestingly the statement is written in a creedal way, it wishes to mimic the tone of creeds like Nicene and Apostles by its affirmations. Leaves one to wonder who gave them this authority and by what right can they issue such a statement. As far as I know, they are not church fathers, just prominent pastors within a small section of evangelical circles. This is where I think a significant injustice is occurring to the principle of common good. The breaking apart of community, the intentional splitting of Christian fellowship, and creating a society of division and impeding people from making conditions better in social life for common community. It utterly destroys the oneness of Christ they are so desperately trying to preserve for the evangelical Christian community. Many earnest Christians truly believe that social justice is imperative to a life of faith that Social justice is about turning things the right way up the way that God intended. It is God who demands justice in a w orld where injustice is rife. Solidarity comes under attack in this statement via many of the affirmations, particularly the ones on Sexuality/Marriage, Complementarianism, Race/Ethnicity, Culture, and Racism. There is division created in the ways these affirmations are worded and what the denials state. Race issues come under great attack and makes it easy for people to not stand with brown/black brothers and sisters who face discrimination, prejudice, hate crimes, and racism. It puts a great deal of onus on people of color to just forgive and get over it. Attacking social justice the way the document does sends a very clear message that they only identity that matters is the identity in Christ. That to take a stand for people of color in name of justice is to create problems where none exist. Jemar Tisby puts it this way, While Christians from many traditions, races and ethnicities have displayed a concern for social justice, it is a topic that particularly concerns black and brown folks. We have endured a long history of race-based discrimination that did not simply disappear after the March on Washington, the passage of the Civil Rights Act or the election of the nations first black president. Statements that dismiss social justice send a message that the ongoing marginalization many minorities still experience and struggle against is of no concern to their fellow Christians. Or to God. Or to the Bible. The family of God cannot stand united in solidarity with the continued marginalization of people of color. How can we serve the oppressed, stand with those in poverty, or act for the good of everyone when we cannot acknowledge the experiences of people of color?

Managing Volunteer Performance Objectives For Employees

Introduction With every new volunteer coming onboard to the organization, it is vital to ensure each and every one is well-versed and fortified with the expectations of the role as a volunteer. Information Sessions and Orientations present themselves as the perfect platform to provide an outline of expectations. For example: the code of conduct, policies and procedures, risk management and administrative housekeeping items (i.e.: reference letters, performance evaluations, attendance, dismissals, etc.) It is important to generate a strong foundation for managing volunteer expectations in order to keep volunteers well-organized and engaged in their role while making a strong impact to the organization. Performance Objectives Comparable to†¦show more content†¦This will give the volunteers an opportunity to review and respond with questions they may have while they anticipate compliancy from the organization in order to begin their volunteer assignment. In addition to providing the standards and guidelines and the position description, volunteers are requested to sign off on an agreement form after their first shift. The volunteer agreement encompasses many elements from the Canadian Code of Volunteer Involvement (2012) and the National Occupational Standards (2013). Essentially, it is a volunteer pledge to the organization that all responsibilities will be performed to the best of their ability within the boundary of the volunteer role. Likewise, program staff and Volunteer Resources will sign an agreement form to initiate the support that the volunteers will receive while on duty. Conduct Performance Review Performance evaluations are documented methods in order to retrieve feedback from program contacts based on their observation of the volunteer in the placement. As well, volunteers have the equivalent opportunity to assess and provide their feedback regarding the placement, and share their feedback with the programs. In terms of collecting feedback, there is a great focus on revamping the current volunteer assessment form in its entirety. â€Å"Assessing† a volunteer in their role is considered less intimidating than â€Å"performance evaluation†. It is believed

Elements of Crime Free Essays

Elements of a Crime (Actus Reus Mens Rea) Model Lesson Plan Source: Original lesson plan. Handout #2 from David Crump, Criminal Law: Cases, Statutes, And Lawyering Strategies, Lexis Nexis 2005 pg. 117-18. We will write a custom essay sample on Elements of Crime or any similar topic only for you Order Now I. Goals: by the end of this class sstudents should have a sthrong foundation for reading criminal statutes and differentiating ssimilar crimes. II. Objectives a. Knowledge objectives: as a result of this class sstudents will be better able to: i. define â€Å"Actus Reus† and â€Å"Mens Rea† ii. understand the different gradations of Mens Rea iii. nderstand the differences between Washington’s homicide statutes b. Skills objectives: as a result of this class sstudents will be better able to: i. read a statute carefully and apply it to fact patterns ii. present and defend their interpretations of the law c. Attitude objectives: i. Sstudents should understand that the severity of criminal punishments can vary greatly depending on the defendant’s mental state in a manner that is largely consistent with the general societal belief that intentionally wrongful acts are worse than unintentional, but still wrongful acts. ii. Sstudents should carefully consider the potentially harsh results that occur when legislatures replace mens rea with strict liability. III. Methods (1)Distribute Handout #1 (Hypos) (2)Read the introductory hypothetical aloud as a class. Ask for volunteers to answer the questions. a. The class should come to the conclusion that Frank did â€Å"cause† Bill’s death in the sense that if he hadn’t moved the mirror in the particular way he did at that exact time, the window washer wouldn’t have been blinded and Bill wouldn’t have slipped. This is a good example of â€Å"but for† or â€Å"actual causation† as used in Handout #2. However, the law typically only imposes liability where the defendant’s conduct is the â€Å"proximate cause† of the harmful event/ crime. b. However, it seems like Frank didn’t do anything â€Å"wrong. † Try to elicit why this result seems wrong and write the class’s ideas on the whiteboard. (3)Distribute Handout #2 (Elements) (4)Handout #2 Walk through the Elements handout. Be careful to explain that not all of the elements are always present in a criminal statute. For example, attempted murder doesn’t have a harm element and parking violations don’t have a mens rea element, e. g. ne can receive a parking citation for parking in a handicapped spot even if it was unintentional or an accident. Furthermore, the elements aren’t perfectly discrete and there is some overlap. (5)Distribute Handout #3 (Statutes) a. Explain that the groups will be analyzing the hypos with respect to the statutes provided in Handout #3. The Grades of Ho micide are meant to demonstrate the changes mens rea. b. Walk through the statutes and give a thumbnail sketch of i. First degree murder: 1. Premeditated killing. An intentional killing that was deliberate and contemplated prior to the killing. . Extreme Indifference. Covers the possibility that someone knows that what they are going to do will result in the death of another person, but at the same time doesn’t â€Å"intend† to kill. See the bomb hypo in handout # 1. ii. Second degree murder 1. Intentional killing without premeditation. The classic example is a passion killing where the homicide occurs in the heat of the moment. iii. First degree manslaughter 1. Recklessness. Conscious awareness of an unacceptable risk to human life. Recklessness is ssimilar to extreme indifference, but the risk that human life will be lost is less. v. Second degree manslaughter 1. Criminal negligence. Gross deviation from standard of care. v. Statutory rape 1. No mens rea. Strict liab ility with a limited affirmative defense where minor misrepresents age. In an effort to protect minor children, state legislatures have placed an increased burden to ascertain age on the older party. (6)Break into groups of 3-5 to apply statutes to Hypos 1-5. Have groups designate a reporter and a recorder. The recorder should write each of the group members’ names on the top of handout #1 and also record the group’s aanswers on the space provided. The Reporter is responsible for explaining the group’s reasoning and conclusion when the class reconvenes. (7)Reconvene Class: call on each group to present their analysis of one hypo. Ask questions to push them in the right direction if you think they missed something or ask questions forcing them to defend their aanswers if you think they got it right. Note to teacher: suggested aanswers to the hypotheticals are on a separate sheet at the end of this lesson plan. (8)Take-away: mens rea standards vary widely from premeditated intent to strict liability. You need to read statutes carefully to determine the correct standard. IV. Evaluation a. Group performance on written responses to Hypos1-5 and class discussion. V. Assignment a. Write a one page response to the following question: Shcould Melvin be punished for his relationship with Laura? If not, please explain why. How do you think Washington’s statutory rape statute should be changed? If you think that Melvin should be punished, please explain why. Handout #1: Hypothetical Scenarios Introductory Hypo: Frank is helping his friend move into a downtown Seattle condo. While unloading a large mirror from the moving truck, the bright sunlight hits the mirror and reflects against the 40th floor of the skyscraper across the street which temporarily blinds a window washer and causes him to stumble. During this moment of temporary blindness, lasting about a second and a half, the window washer inadvertently kicks over his window washing bucket onto the street below. The water and soap from the bucket hit the sidewalk right in front of Bill the jogger. Bill was unable to stop before stepping on the slippery sidewalk, causing him to lose his balance and fall. When Bill fell, he hit his head on the sidewalk. Bill died two weeks later from his head injury. Suppose that Washington law provides: Anyone who causes the death of another person shall be guilty of murder. Wcould Frank be guilty of murder under this law? Shcould he be? Group Exercise Hypos Instructions: Nominate someone in your group to be the recorder and another person to be the class reporter. Read each hypothetical and determine which statute, if any, applies to the facts of the hypothetical and whether the defendant has violated the statute. Hypo #1: Sarah is held at gun point by Roger on a rooftop. Roger tells Sarah that she must shoot and kill Steven. Sarah pleads with Roger to let her go and that she does not want to kill Steven. Roger tells Sarah that unless she successfully shoots and kills Steven, he will kill Sarah and her entire family. Roger has a violent reputation and Sarah has no reason to believe that Roger will not follow through with his threat. Roger identifies Steven walking on the other side of the street and tells Sarah to take the shot. Fearing for the safety of her family and herself, Sarah takes careful aim at Steven, gauges the wind and change in elevation, and fires a precise shot penetrating Steven’s heart. What crimes if any has Sarah committed? How to cite Elements of Crime, Papers

Persepolis A Script on the Iran War Essay Example For Students

Persepolis: A Script on the Iran War Essay Persepolis is a graphic memoir of Marjane Satrapi. The book has received multiple accolades and citations for its realistic and well-written script as well as its commitment against totalitarianism. Satrapi writes (and draws) of her life during the war between Iran and Iraq. It has both literal and symbolic meanings hidden among the drawings, as it also shows the hardships she faced in other countries and even, at times, in her home country of Iran. It helps to show the past and somewhat present views of Iranians and others about Iran, it’s leaders, the war, and the corruption of the Iranian government. Satrapi uses symbolism, anecdotes, and a strong motif of the unfair treatment and view of Iranians to help create a deep, true, emotional, and captivating story. Satrapi uses symbolism to give deeper meaning to her stories and make them more emotional. Many drawings in the memoir have a deeper meaning that isn’t immediately apparent, but that give more meaning to the current situation. A good example of a drawing like this can be found on page 71. The words accompanying the picture are â€Å"and so I was lost, without any bearings†¦ What could be worse than that?† In the middle of the page is Marji, floating in space, and a loud speech bubble (probably her mother or father) saying â€Å"Marji, run to the basement! We’re being bombed!† The bottom returns to Marji’s point of view, where she simply states: â€Å"It was the beginning of the war.† What can the reader draw from this? This is the point in the book at which Marji’s life begins to lose it’s goodness. When she says she’s lost, she means she doesn’t know what to believe. She’s just abandoned God (who, unsurprisingly, doesn’t show up for the rest of the book) and lost her one and only Unc. .erstand more about the situation, background, and the difficulties facing Iranians before, during, and after the war. Marjane Satrapi used symbolism, anecdotes, and motif to advance the plot of her graphic memoir Persepolis. Though the book is on some banned books lists, Persepolis contains many real-world themes and morals. The many awards the book has received can be partly credited to Satrapi’s use of literary devices. It is a book taught popularly in high school english classes because, oftentimes, it is one of the students’ first confrontations with Middle Eastern literature. In addition, it can be used to show the many freedoms, rights, and priveledges we take for granted here in the United States. Through the happy drawings and the sad drawings, Persepolis is a graphic memoir deserving of its recognition that will captivate the reader all the way through.