AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2009 > January
January 2009
Are nonbelievers unfairly maligned in America?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
In the American melting pot, protecting our freedom to hold and express different beliefs makes us stronger. In that vein, I actually can name a non-theist in Congress, Rep. Pete Stark of California, as identified by the Secular Coalition of America.
But, yes, there are many more people of faith in Congress than secularists — as there should be, in a representative government. In a 2008 Pew report, 92 percent of Americans polled believe in God or a “universal spirit.” (Ironically including 21 percent of those who otherwise called themselves atheists!) Likewise, nearly half of all Americans will attend a worship service once a week — with many more attending from time to time. With such overwhelming numbers, it would be strange if elected officials didn’t reflect that basic proportion.
“Nonbelievers” aren’t marginalized. In fact, I don’t believe in the term nonbeliever. Everyone believes in something. Whether it is in a deity or in the absence of a deity, everyone has a system of belief. And our whole system of government — and the whole direction of our secular culture — is set up to protect the rights of the “believing-in-nothing’ minority anyway.
In fact, as a result, it is often believers who are being maligned and hindered. By definition, the minority who don’t want to hear about religion are being protected in the courts at the expense of everyone else. As I have argued over the years, the whole point behind the First Amendment was to avoid government establishing religion, not eradicating it from the public square. And yet secularists and their ACLU allies keep protesting and suing to ensure that “separation” can only mean ‘eradication.’
In an email interview, Carrie Earll, Focus on the Family’s senior director of issue analysis for government and public policy, pointed out that many people of faith become public leaders because they are “motivated by their faith and concepts of justice and social responsibility to be good citizens.” Of course, many atheists say they share those convictions of right and wrong.
Which has always puzzled me: if one does not believe in a deity who created absolute truth, and if one instead embraces moral relativism … where do those convictions or standards of right and wrong come from?
Do animal rescue groups make it too hard to adopt pets?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I have recently realized that animal rescue groups are caring, well-meaning — and making it way too hard to save homeless animals.
You see, like the new First Family, our family has been researching pets — and with so many homeless animals euthanized (72 percent of cats, according to the National Council on Pet Population), we decided to adopt two “rescue kittens.” But after dozens of frustrating phone calls to rescue groups and shelters, no one would adopt to us. Why? We are going to allow our cats outside once they’re older. These groups all refuse you if you don’t agree in writing to keep cats indoors and follow pages of other stipulations (dog provisions are equally extensive).
We live on a quiet cul-de-sac and I want my children to be able to play outside with our cats, as I did. Yet modern rescue groups have become so opposed to that that they will, by default, allow cats to be euthanized instead. Most rescue groups run “no-kill” shelters — but they’re usually full. Every animal they won’t adopt to a caring family means another being killed somewhere. Even a local county government shelter that actually euthanizes cats wouldn’t adopt once we said we’d allow them outside!
I firmly support spaying, neutering, and requiring assurance that the pet will be cared for. But beyond that, this culture of micromanagement isn’t just offensive — it discourages only the responsible owners. Others will just lie and sign the form.
More critically, the “no-outdoor” policy is based on wrong information. Every shelter quoted the same statistic: cats allowed outside live less than three years. “Bunk,” my veterinarian said. After days of research I could find no source for that statistic, and believe that if it exists, it must apply to feral (wild) cats. By contrast, the oldest and largest pet insurer, Veterinary Pet Insurance (VPI), says the top 10 reasons for treatment are almost the same whether the cat is indoor or outdoor. As spokesman Brian Iannessa put it, “We just don’t differentiate.”
We finally found a county shelter that willingly gave us two kittens. I urge all other rescue groups to stop relying on urban-legend data and recognize that good homes come in many different forms.
Rebuttal
“Marley and Me”? Just change the title to “Milo and Me” and you have a glimpse of our life since we adopted an adorable black lab/mix puppy in front of a pet store last fall. He loves to eat straps — leashes, purses and favorite shoes have gone to meet their maker. And the vet bills! We’ve dealt with fleas, mange, kennel cough, even an overnight stay after he found an old bar of rat poison left in the fireplace grate.
But, so what? We adore this dog, and thanks to the thorough vetting done by the animal rescue group that let us adopt Milo, we knew exactly what we were getting into. Sure, at first the amount of questions the intake woman asked seemed extreme. “We’re not adopting a baby”, I remember thinking.
Yet the more she asked, the more I realized the depth of this new commitment. By the time we left the pet store, (where we were personally escorted around, to make sure we had everything we needed) I saw this puppy not as an adorable new friend, but as a growing dog that would be with our family for many years to come, in good times and bad.
Unfortunately, too many new owners don’t fully comprehend this responsibility. An estimated 8 to10 million animals are sent to shelters each year, and many are older dogs and cats. What rescue groups are trying to do is stop the cycle of adoption and abandonment, a cycle that has increased in this economy due to rampant foreclosures and evictions, according to a 2008 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, as foreclosures rise, more pets are abandoned.
Rescue groups can afford to have stricter standards than larger organizations, like our local humane society. Though the one in our town strongly advises against letting cats go outside — disease, dogs and traffic pose too great a peril — they don’t bar prospective adoptions for that reason.
I’m a huge fan of animal rescue groups; they help new owners truly understand the pet/human relationship. As for “Milo and Me,” things are going well. We’ve been training him and he’s been training us, and though life continues to be a roller coaster of chaos and cuddles, I can’t imagine it any other way.
After all, he’s our baby.
Should Facebook censor nursing-mom pics?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
“Facebook is officially uncool!” a young colleague of my husband joked at a holiday party when I mentioned that I had joined this social networking site. In truth, he’s right; with tons of folks posting suburban family pics, Facebook is no longer just for the young and trendy.
So it’s ironic that “oldsters” are the ones being accused of posting sexually explicit pics —and they’re not taking it buttoned up. ” Hey Facebook, Breastfeeding is Not Obscene!” became a popular discussion group on the site — over 100,000 members strong — after several women noticed that any photo of a nursing mother was flagged for removal.
The Facebook controversy itself wouldn’t alarm me so much if it wasn’t indicative of a greater problem in our culture, the complete inability to see breasts as anything other than sexual objects. A few states even have laws on the books declaring that nursing moms can be prosecuted for indecent exposure.
Most women choose to nurse discreetly in public. Still, situations like the Facebook flare-up are more than an imaginary scuffle designed to spice up the news. They contribute to the persistent impression that nursing should be a shameful activity, instead of simply the way females feed their newborns. Many new mothers fall victim to this societal stigma; it keeps them from even attempting to breastfeed.
A Facebook spokesperson explained to The New York Times that with thousands of complaints about various things each day, they prefer a consistent policy on this part of the body. “Whether it’s obscene, art or a natural act — we’d rather just leave it at nudity and draw the line there.”
Well, I’d rather you didn’t, Facebook, even if it burdens your censors. I’ve seen some of these “offensive” photos (angry nursing parents have now posted them on their blogs) and the lack of obscenity takes your breath away. A mother leaning toward her child, the head of a newborn, and, between them, a sliver of skin about as erotic as a pair of maternity pants.
Compare that to the abundance of non-nursing breasts flaunted on the site, squeezed into bikinis smaller than a baby’s diaper. Nursing moms are obscene but stripper poses are Facebook-friendly? Now that’s officially uncool.
Rebuttal
Andy is not the only one to see the banned contraband. Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt emailed some photos so I could judge for myself. The women were completely topless, hanging all out there, with a tiny part of one breast covered by a nursing baby. Many breastfeeding pictures can be very discreet - but unfortunately too many people aren’t. Since those folks are determined to ruin it for everyone, sites like Facebook have no choice but to err on the side of caution.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is a double standard with allowing stripper-friendly pictures and not breastfeeding photos… but it’s ludicrous to think we should solve the problem of too much exposure by allowing more! Facebook’s decency standards are similar to those of every newspaper and television channel - except, of course, when the networks want to get away with ‘wardrobe malfunctions.’
The truth that people are ignoring in their fury is that Facebook doesn’t actually censor breastfeeding pictures: Schnitt says Facebook has counted at least 4,000 pictures of breastfeeding moms that are on the site right now. Facebook only removes a picture if another user complains that it is offensive for showing more bosom than baby. The site doesn’t have a lactation czar, searching day and night for the first sign of exposure. If all the pictures were a discreet and beautiful celebration of the bond between mom and infant, then no one would complain — just like the other 4,000-plus photos confirm.
This is not actually about breastfeeding: it’s about some people trying to push the bounds of normal decency standards. These people appear to care more about making a statement than about capturing an endearing moment. I’m grateful Facebook is not giving in to that.
Facebook’s Schnitt explained, “Our line is not arbitrary; it is a well-established line with lots of precedent. The FCC has same one.” Schnitt surveyed many newspapers about their policies, and to his knowledge, none of them have published the type of pictures that were pulled from Facebook.
Andy dings Facebook as uncool - but the hypocrisy of those who judge Facebook for listening to its users, when they themselves are the ones trying to breach the regular lines of decency, is even worse.
Rick Warren’s inaugural role
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Andy worried that conservatives wouldn’t give Barack Obama a chance - but it’s not conservatives who are up in arms about the inauguration. The far left is incensed that Obama asked Dr. Rick Warren to pray for God’s blessing over his presidency, simply because Warren supports traditional marriage: something presumably supported by every pastor at every invocation in American history. And something that Obama himself supports, as explained in 2006: “I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman… [and] that decisions about marriage should be left to the states.”
So the residents of California amended their Constitution. And now those who want to demand tolerance and respect are showing extreme prejudice and disrespect. Even mainstream liberal Websites are, appallingly, publicizing plans for those at Obama’s inauguration to stand and turn their backs when Warren comes to the stage!
I was so surprised and proud of Obama for reaching across ideological lines to invite Warren - and so sad to see just how trapped in discord some of Obama’s supporters want us to remain. Those who are angry about the California decision should stop taking their anger out on a pastor who has poured his life out in the sort of ministry that they would otherwise support. Warren’s California church provides enormous succor to the poor and those with HIV/AIDS. He personally gives away 90 percent of his income from his best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life,” to the global fight against AIDS, poverty and illiteracy. And he also reached across barriers to invite Obama to a 2006 Global AIDS summit at his church, over the objections of some parishioners upset with Obama’s pro-choice positions.
Detractors call Warren’s views divisive, but how can they be divisive if most people agree with them and they follow the teachings of every major religion? It would be one thing if he was harsh about it, but his statements have always been full of love and grace - he just won’t change to go along with the recent changes in a portion of our culture.
Although I strongly disagree with some Obama decisions, I can still admire and support his attempts to bring a fractured nation together. I call on Warren’s detractors to do the same.
Rebuttal
“It would be one thing if he were harsh about it,” my colleague writes of Rick Warren’s attitude towards homosexuality, as though tone matters more than content, as though prejudice delivered with equanimity isn’t prejudice at all.
Mere weeks after a crushing civil rights defeat in California, many who voted for Obama were blindsided by his selection of Rick Warren, a vocal and influential backer of Proposition 8. Far more than a mere proponent of traditionalism, Warren compares gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and his church blatantly rejects “unredeemed” gay members.
So the gay community is upset, and those who share in their fight for equality are upset as well. In fact, this anger mirrors the furor that ensued when Warren invited Obama to a 2006 Global AIDS summit. Far more than “some parishioners” complained: a conservative talk radio host called Obama’s work in the Senate “inhumane, sick and sinister evil”, and Phyllis Schlafly spearheaded a furious open letter condemning the invitation. Perhaps most telling was the view of Dr. Wiley Drake, a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, who explained, “You can’t work together with people totally opposed to what you are.” I think there’s more than a few gay folks who might say “Amen” to that.
Still it’s time we tried, even if the effort rankles. Yet in healing our fractured nation, we needn’t exclude hot-headed protests (provided we keep our shoes on). From Schlafly’s angry letter to a sea of angry backsides, democracy has always welcomed dissent.
I’ll be heading off soon to the inaugural, taking my place in that crowd of teeming millions. Once there, I’m not turning my back on Rick Warren. I want to hear what he has to say. And while he’s saying it, I’ll look around me, marveling at how we all got there. Some of my neighbors on that cold morning will be life-long Republicans, supporting their first Democrat. Others will be young evangelicals, putting aside old litmus tests for the pressing issues of poverty and peace. Obama’s reach across ideological lines, only surprising in light of the last eight years, has brought us to this place, a vast assemblage of humanity filled with anger and hope, exhilaration and fear, mutual distrust, mutual need.
Let the democracy begin, again.
What is the single biggest issue facing women in 2009?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The single biggest issue facing women in 2009? Probably the same issue that most concerned women in 1929—ain’t nostalgia grand?
This time around, our plummeting economy has affected a working world filled with women as well as men, and there wasn’t anyone during the holidays who wouldn’t have picked job security over a new Guitar Hero waiting for them under the tree. (Well, maybe Guitar Hero is a bad example — it rocks! But you get the idea.)
Tough times all over, yet women enter this troubling financial cycle already behind the guys. Over a quarter of all U.S. households are headed by a woman, and those families earn and save less than all other households. In addition, single women have a median net worth that is about a third of the $93,000 national average.
Given these added challenges, can women keep up with their bills? Maybe, but it’s their long-term health that seems to be falling by the wayside.
The American Psychological Association conducted a stress survey last summer which showed than more women than men (84 percent to 75 percent) expressed fears about the economy, with new physiological and emotional symptoms attending that worry — and that was before the Dow played its own swan song.
It gets worse: moms are cutting back on health care, both for themselves and their families, right as the added stress makes them ripe for the number-one killer of women, heart disease.
Riding somewhat to the rescue is a solution right out of the Depression-era playbook; building jobs by building bridges and roads. Yet as Linda Hirshman wrote recently in the New York Times, women only make up 9 percent of the work force in construction, and few are trained in alternative energy, the other major public works job source. She points out that growth in education and child care jobs, also promised by this administration, would put many more women back on the payroll.
I understand the grumbling about turning into the Socialist States of America — really, I do. But desperate times call for inclusive measures. I hope that when the new administration creates a plan of attack for Depression 2.0, they remember that women need jobs too, for very health of our nation. Wouldn’t that rock?
Rebuttal
The economy is the most important issue for women, but Obama’s New Deal 2.0 approach risks making it worse, not better! Moreover, although Andy sincerely believes Obama’s massive public-works stimulus package can be used to create jobs for women, it will most likely do the reverse.
Primarily because so many businesses and households are struggling, finding the money to pay for the necessary massive new taxes will sabotage the very private sector engine than can power us out of a recession. And women will suffer most: not only do they have less margin (as Andy notes), but women are far more likely than men to be the independent contractors or part-time employees who are first to go when a company is forced to cut costs.
Too many people don’t understand that businesses paying new taxes means cutting costs elsewhere — especially for the small businesses who employ half of all workers. Now, having spent years working on Capitol Hill and for the Fed, I have a lifelong respect for public servants. But it’s just a reality that most have little or no private-sector experience. If our incoming president had ever run a business there is no way he’d propose massive government works as a means of “stimulating” the economy. He might still propose limited public works in specific areas but would more likely rely on tax cuts to jump-start private business and promote hiring.
Instead, as Cesar Conda explained in an excellent October 2008 National Review article, Obama’s tax hikes — such as for the “stimulus package” — stand to most hurt the small business sector that creates 75 percent of our new jobs.
I know this all too well. As a small business owner, I employ eight terrific part-time women — and this year I also have to somehow find an extra $10,000 for the poorly designed Alternative Minimium Tax that is increasingly pouncing on average Americans like me. Since, like most business owners, I have no extra cash lying around, I have no choice but to lay off one of my staff and use what should have been her salary to pay that tax increase.
That stark, depressing, unintended effect will be repeated endlessly under the “stimulus package” — and is the reality that big-government proponents simply do not understand.
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
I watched Barack Obama’s inauguration speech in D.C., standing on my tippy toes to catch a glimpse of the Jumbotron. Halfway through, our new president said something that caused one mainstream-looking young woman in front of me to pump her fist in delight. “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness” he began, adding, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.”
Nonbelievers? Did President Obama actually give a shout-out to atheists and agnostics in his inaugural address? Yes, he did.
Although not on the level of my fist-pumping neighbor, I too was pleased with this purposeful inclusion. I’ve grown increasingly alarmed by how many of us have allowed our faith to seep into decisions of governance.
“Name one nonbeliever who holds high political office” Dr. Jeremy Gunn challenged me on a recent phone call. “Just one.” Gunn is the director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and the author of “Spiritual Weapons: The Cold War and the Forging of an American National Religion.”
Noting that it’s de rigueur for anyone running for office to profess their faith, Gunn wonders, “Is it that we believe that people who say they are religious are more honest? What’s the proof of that?”
There is, as Gunn suggested, so much “social opprobrium” connected to atheism that campaigns to keep government secular are viewed as an aggressive attack on public signs of faith, rather than an upholding of the Constitution.
At any rate, nonbelievers are rarely pumping their fists in the public square. They walk among us quietly, with many of the same passions and concerns that unite most Americans. Our political leaders recognize this fact; both George Bush and Barack Obama have graciously acknowledged nonbelievers in speaking to the American people. Yet try telling that to the religious leaders who took exception to Obama’s reference. As one put it to an AOL reporter, “he (Obama) seems to be trying to redefine who we are.”
Really? Isn’t he just trying to show all that we are? Surely this patchwork that we’re so proud of won’t fray if we acknowledge that those who don’t share our belief in God still share our love of country.
Have a little faith, people.