ashhleyyc

[ashhleyyc]

Out of all the topics we’ve covered in class this semester, my favorite lectures were the ones that discussed the Amish, their principles, and their way of life. With the ongoing situation of the coronavirus, I was curious to learn about how the Amish were handling the pandemic, especially since they’re disconnected from the modern day lifestyle of Americans. In this New York Times article I read titled “In Ohio, the Amish Take On the Coronavirus”, I was able to learn about how the Amish are handling the situation, and even contributing efforts to the rest of society by making face shields within their community.

In class, we learned about how the Amish live non-resistant lives and care for their community, people, and land. They are also a community that follows the Bible literally and identify themselves as Christians. After learning in class that the Amish are known for isolating themselves from the rest of society and living in very old-fashioned times, I was surprised to read in the article that they’re opening themselves to the nation and joining the fight against the coronavirus. One of the Amish men they interviewed in the article also mentioned how the global pandemic was causing some friction between their faith and their commitment to the government. This made sense to me because we learned in class that the Amish don’t accept or apply for any federal aid from the government, but this pandemic is also affecting their economy and making them consider helping their state by accepting payment for making face shields for local hospitals and clinics. It’s interesting how the pandemic has put their faith and values in a different perspective due to the fact that nobody is safe from contracting coronavirus.

Aside from helping create face shields, face masks, surgical gowns, and protective garments, the article also discusses how the Amish are reacting as a community to this pandemic. Being that they are such a tight-knit community, the impact of such a deadly pandemic can be devastating. An Amish bishop who was interviewed in the article, Leroy Yoder, stated, “More people are becoming aware of it, seeing a risk, but maybe not as fast as the outside world.” This was concerning to read because in class we learned that the Amish don’t have hospitalization insurance, which can put a huge financial burden on communities with members who contract the virus. Therefore, I was curious if they were taking measures such as social distancing and utilizing masks to prevent exposure to the coronavirus.

I remember in class we learned that the Amish tend to hold their church services in their homes, which can be problematic today with all of the social distancing guidelines people are expected to be following. Unfortunately, the article highlighted that the Amish in Holmes County, Ohio held a gathering of 100 people for a post-funeral meal. Even though it mentioned that the gatherings normally host 400-500 guests for funerals, 100 guests is still way over the state mandated advisory against gatherings of over 10 people. But, I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for the Amish to accustom to these rules when they live such communal lives. From this article I learned how the Amish are utilizing their communities to come together and help reduce the spread of coronavirus, but also how the global pandemic is causing disruption to their lifestyle and traditions.

Works Cited:

Williamson, Elizabeth. “In Ohio, the Amish Take On the Coronavirus.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Apr. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/04/09/us/politics/amish-coronavirus-ohio.html#commentsContainer.

[ashhleyyc]

Being a minority myself, a Mexican-American, I felt especially saddened to sit in class and hear about all of the hate, attacks, and bullying that Muslims faced after the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred. I was not oblivious to the terrorizing that Muslims endured but it made it more real when we watched the PBS documentary that highlighted Muslim communities and their members. I find it astonishing that some people carry so much hatred in their hearts to the extent where they blame an entire race of people for the acts of a handful of malicious individuals. How can we as humans hate and profile an entire ethnic group so quickly?

Now, as we face this global pandemic, it was no surprise to me when I started hearing that people are attacking Asian Americans and blaming them for the coronavirus. It makes no sense. In the article “Andrew Yang: Asian Americans being attacked over coronavirus is ‘a heartbreaking phenomenon’, written by Kate Sullivan, she writes about the former Democratic presidential candidate’s discontent with the targeting of Chinese and Asian Americans. The racist and xenophobic attacks that Chinese and Asian Americans are facing today, are similar to those that Muslims endured after the 9/11 terrorist attack. Yang made such a valid point when he said that Asian Americans are reacting to the virus in the same manner as the rest of Americans, they’re scared and also fearful of getting sick, just like everyone else.

But, there’s a difference between the 9/11 attacks and the coronavirus. The leaders. Rather than try to bring a nation together and unify the people like President Bush did after 9/11, President Trump instead constantly referred to the coronavirus as the ‘Chinese virus’. Therefore, he did much more damage and further encouraged the negative stigma towards Asian Americans. He tried making the point that he referred to it as the ‘Chinese virus’ because the virus originates in Wuhan, China, but many still deem the name extremely inaccurate. As a matter of fact, Yang mentions how he saw no positive value from referring to it with such a name, especially since he’s even heard of young schoolchildren “getting called the Chinese virus and being bullied mercilessly.” Yang also talks about how it’s important that leaders distinguish between the Chinese government and the Chinese people when they discuss the global pandemic because it can easily be misconstrued into something far more negative.

Yang emphasizes that there is justified blame being placed on the Chinese government for attempting to cover up the impact of the coronavirus, but the Chinese people are suffering just like everyone else is. I think that when he made this point, he wanted to highlight that we are all equals in this situation and that nobody is getting special treatment over someone else. At the end of the day, the Chinese people are in the same boat as us and they’re also angry with the decisions made by their government. So why are people feeling the need to blame the Chinese people for something they had no control over?

The Asian Americans and Muslims are able to heavily relate with one another because of this life-changing pandemic and a life-changing terrorist attack. It’s sad to see that they are being treated similarly for situations and acts beyond their control. We as people need to stop blaming each other and start looking at the bigger issues at hand. Instead of tearing each other apart, we need to come together. Especially during times like these.

Works Cited:

Sullivan, Kate. “Yang: Asian Americans Being Attacked over Coronavirus Is 'Heartbreaking'.” CNN, Cable News Network, 3 Apr. 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/04/02/politics/andrew-yang-asian-americans-attacked-coronavirus/index.html.

[ashhleyyc]

I found this article, by Pew Research, to be very interesting because I had not known that during this global pandemic, some states have religious exemptions compared to others. I had assumed that all religious gatherings larger than ten were subject to cancellation due to violating social distancing recommendations from the government. To my surprise, there’s only ten states that completely prohibit religious gatherings, including our very own great state of California. The other states that completely prohibit religious gatherings are Washington, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Vermont, and New Jersey. The rest of the forty states are either limited to having religious gatherings of ten or fewer, limited in other ways, or completely exempt from limits.

In class we learned heavily about the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is a monumental rule that has led to great separation between church and state, which is what people fought for. Now though, some churches are suing the governor of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom, because they believe his prohibiting religious gatherings entirely is a violation of their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Although the federal judge rejected their request to hold services, I personally can see where their frustration comes from.

The article highlights how some states deem religious gatherings as ‘essential’ and while states like California and New York have had some of the highest number of cases of coronavirus, I do think there should be some consistency in their rules regarding religious exemptions. I don’t think it’s fair that there are a significant amount of states with little to no limits on their religious gatherings. While there’s the option of holding services over virtual sites like Zoom or Skype, it’s not the same for people who take their religious environment seriously.

I commend those states that have considered the impact that religion has on people’s lives and that have tried to balance religious freedom concerns. Those states, while still having some restrictions on gathering sizes and social distancing rules, are still giving their people the choice to practice their religion in a more responsible way. I believe that if the state of California gave that kind of option or simply any alternative to what they have implemented now, people would not resist so much and rebel by still holding religious gatherings. By giving people even the smallest bit of freedom to choose, the situation would not be as tense and religious communities would not feel as if their First Amendment right to exercise their religion freely, was being violated by the state. There definitely needs to be some sort of alternative for those living in states where religious gatherings are being prohibited entirely because it is not fair to those communities when a third of the states are allowing them to continue with no restrictions at all.

Although each state’s government is trying to take their own preventative measures in order to slow the spread of the coronavirus, it’s important that they don’t overstep and violate the basic rights of their citizens because it’s times like these when many religious communities need one another and need to come together in order to stay strong.

Works Cited:

Villa, Virginia. “Most States Have Religious Exemptions to COVID-19 Social Distancing Rules.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 27 Apr. 2020, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/27/most-states-have-religious-exemptions-to-covid-19-social-distancing-rules/.

[ashhleyyc]

Earlier this semester, a big religious group that we discussed were the Jehovah’s Witnesses. During lecture we dove deep into their core identity, which is a very neutral one. On one of our class slides we learned that Jehovah’s Witnesses, as subjects of God’s government, or Kingdom, believe they should “witness” about it to others. Although they don’t have a strong presence in politics and don’t run for political positions in the government, they are active in their communities. They are notoriously known for their recruiting in public areas and knocking on doors in order to continue to spread their faith. In class, we watched a documentary that showed a father and son that went door to door in various neighborhoods to promote being a Jehovah’s Witness. When I remembered that we watched this documentary in class, I thought about how their community was being affected by coronavirus, especially since most of their recruiting of new members is face-to-face. So, when I read this article by CNN called ‘People Would Be So Receptive Right Now, and We Can’t Knock On Doors’, I learned about the impact the pandemic is having on Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The article mentions that 1.3 million of Americans are Jehovah’s Witnesses, and ever since religious gatherings have been put at a pause, they have not been able to hand out brochures or ring on doorbells. Being that they are such a prominent and visible religious group, it has taken a huge toll on their members who are used to avidly sharing their beliefs. The article highlights the story of a woman from Georgia, named Brenda Francis, who has been a Jehovah’s Witness since she was 20 years old. She had not understood the full impact that the global pandemic would have on her daily life as a Jehovah so when she was told from their headquarters to stop knocking on doors, she felt stuck on what to do. I think it was a good call for them to stop having their members ringing people’s doorbells because they had a valid point, it would appear to prospective members that they didn’t care about the safety of their current members. But I can understand that for someone like Francis who was so accustomed to her routine, it made her feel more compelled to find other ways to witness.

I found it interesting how this pandemic has made religious groups become more creative in the way they spread their religious words. For example, the article states that Jehovah’s Witnesses got more creative by writing letters and calling numbers that they had gotten prior to the coronavirus hitting. Francis, while wearing a mask and gloves, continued passing out pamphlets in front of essential businesses like grocery stores.

In class we learned of the traditional ways that people practice their religion and how Jehovah’s Witnesses actively witness as a part of their daily lives. What amazes me is how people, even them, have adapted to today’s conditions and even feel more inclined to share their religion with those who may need it through these difficult times. It shows that religious groups, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, are resilient and will find a way to keep their beliefs alive.

Searcey, Dionne. “'People Would Be So Receptive Right Now, and We Can't Knock on Doors.'.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Apr. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/us/politics/coronavirus-jehovahs-witnesses.html.

[ashhleyyc]

As a twenty year old college student, it caught my attention when we discussed voter turnout during one of our lectures. We specifically touched upon the low voter turnout within my age group, which includes ages eighteen to twenty-nine. The reasons why this young age group has such a low voter turnout is because young people are not encouraged enough by family and friends to vote, they don’t know how the system works, there’s too many barriers for them to vote, and they’re simply not interested in voting because they don’t see their vote as having a huge impact. These are the reasons we discussed in class, and I have to agree that I can relate to some of those reasons.

But, in this article titled ‘Opposition To Trump Likely To Motivate Young Voters, Poll Shows’ written by Joana Summers, seems to think differently about this upcoming election and the voter turnout. The article starts off by saying, “more than a quarter of the country’s 18-29 year olds say that their lives are worse because of President Trump.” Due to this discontent with the current president, there’s strong belief that the dissatisfaction will lead to a stronger presence of younger voters for this upcoming presidential election. As a matter of fact, one of the polls by Harvard’s Institute of Politics showed that former Vice President Joe Biden has a 60-30 lead over President Trump in the 18-29 age group.

One of the points I agreed with that the article mentioned was how people are more inclined to vote when there’s an effect in their lifestyle from who is President. If it’s a negative impact, they’ll be more motivated to vote in the next election and try to make a better change for themselves and their quality of life. I believe this ties into one of the points made in class about younger voters not participating because they feel their vote won’t make a difference. Everything changes when your life is directly impacted by the person holding office. The article backs this up when it says, “61% of young people and 75% of likely young voters say that the outcome of the 2020 general election will make a difference in their lives.”

One reason that we didn’t discuss in class that is mentioned in the article for being a cause of lower young voter turnout is the lack of feeling that America was made for all races. There’s a lack of belief amongst some races that the government shares the same values and ideals as them, therefore making it hard for them to envision the government making choices with their benefit in mind. This reasoning was found stronger amongst blacks and Hispanics, compared to whites. According to the article, when the 2,546 Americans, ranging from ages 18-29, were asked whether they agreed with the statement that “the founders of America shared my values,” only 34% of blacks and 49% of Hispanics agreed with it. Meanwhile, 60% of whites agreed with the statement. The article highlights the connection between this feeling and overall voting behavior, which is something we didn’t do in class. I appreciate how this article put a different perspective on how I view the lower voter turnout amongst my age group, but remains optimistic that this upcoming election will be drastically different.

Summers, Juana. “Opposition To Trump Likely To Motivate Young Voters, Poll Shows.” NPR, NPR, 23 Apr. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/04/23/841972028/opposition-to-trump-likely-to-motivate-young-voters-poll-shows.

[ashhleyyc]

Out of all of the articles I’ve read for this assignment, this one has by far been the most interesting one of all. An overarching topic in our Religions and Politics class has been the separation between church and state, also known as the First Amendment. Interestingly, this article is about how the federal government is planning on providing economic relief to churches in the U.S. because they are considered to be “businesses”. Since the coronavirus pandemic has forced many places to shut down, including churches, it’s been very difficult for such establishments to make money and stay afloat. While it’s evident that churches need help too, the separation between church and state was a topic not taken lightly in class. Many historic figures from the past that we discussed fought so hard against the government looming any power over religious institutions and these times should be no different.

At the head of the fight against this funding is Legal and Policy Vice President of the American Atheists, Alison Gill. She strongly advocates against this government assistance because, “the government cannot directly fund inherently religious activities,” and she continues by saying, “it can’t spend government tax dollars on prayer, on promoting religion or proselytization.” I can’t say that I disagree with her stance because it’s completely valid. Although I was personally raised Catholic, I consider myself to be more spiritual as a college student, but I can understand that her, being an Atheist, is not comfortable with her tax dollars potentially going towards religious institutions that would not accept her beliefs. I do agree with Alison in the sense that this act would be in complete violation of the First Amendment.

As we learned in class, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. While there’s no doubt that churches may need the extra support in order to keep functioning after this global pandemic, it can appear to be a conflict of interest. Those who support the government aiding religious institutions base their argument on the fact that by denying them aid that would be given to non-religious institutions would be considered discrimination. While this is valid, the separation between church and state is extremely important and I believe the government should not intervene through the use of one’s tax dollars. Religion and the government should remain separate because if they get involved with one another it can lead to unfairness and huge misunderstanding. And for people like Alison, who identify themselves as Atheists, won’t feel comfortable knowing that some of their hard earned money that the government takes away, might be given to a religious institution that discriminates against her for her beliefs or lack thereof.

If anything, if the government wants to provide aid for churches, mosques, or synagogues, they should consider giving individuals the choice on how or where their tax dollars are being spent towards. If that were the case, people like Alison would not feel so powerless and angry about the lines being blurred between church and state.

Works Cited:

Gjelten, Tom. “Another Break From The Past: Government Will Help Churches Pay Pastor Salaries.” NPR, NPR, 6 Apr. 2020, www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/06/828462517/another-break-from-the-past-government-will-help-churches-pay-pastor-salaries.