Best of In The Fray 2007

With the primary elections underway, it feels as though we’ve already leaped headfirst into the New Year.

But here at In The Fray, we are still learning lessons from the past. When we publish a new issue each month, we cannot help but recall the standards set by our previously published stories.

This month’s issue of In The Fray pays homage to our 2007 accomplishments with the republication of some of the best stories we published last year. Each assignment editor selected the best story from her respective section of the magazine, with an eye toward writing or visuals that exceeded expectations and raised the bar for ITF.

Here are the stories our editors considered the bestexamples of our work from 2007:

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: Michelle Chen‘s Cornerless City

IMAGINE: Birgitta Jonsdottir’s Journal of the Ladybug

INTERACT: Megan Hauser’s Bad Eyewear Can Mark a Child

COLUMNS: Jacqueline Barba’s Back to Basics

IDENTIFY: Erin Marie Daly‘s We All Want Love to Win Out. But Whose?

IMAGE: Beth Rooney’s Strange Shore

Thank you to all of the contributors who have raised the bar for In The Fray and to all of the readers who gave us inspiration and support in 2007. We look forward to bringing you even better work in the year ahead.

Happy 2008!

Laura Nathan
Editor

Buffalo, New York

 

Gag me

 

Morning rush hour on the subway is usually quiet… 

Morning rush hour on the subway is usually quiet. The mental fog has not yet lifted and talking is at a minimum, so people keep to themselves. No one is selling anything or pandering for money. I wonder if the commuters on the lines going to the financial district spend the a.m. rush pumping each other up because they have to be ready for the trading bell. Those of us on the west side lines generally stare at nothing in a trance-like state.

This explains why I can hear a clicking noise coming from the other side of the car. The clicks are irregular and it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact location until I see a woman give up her seat to stand near the door. Now that she’s gone I have a clear sight to a man clipping his fingernails. The nails are flying. Then he bites what remains of the cuticle and spits it out. I shudder and close my eyes to blot the image out. But I can still hear the clicks. It’s like nails against a chalkboard. This is why man invented iPod. I jam my earbuds in and turn the volume up. Think puppies, balloons, the Yankees, the latte I’m going to get on my way to work. Anything to get my mind off the image. The only consolation is that he’s not clipping his toenails.

I’m trying to let my eyes rest elsewhere and that’s when I spot an elderly woman flossing her teeth just a few seats down. I wish I could say that she is discreetly trying to extract something from an incisor. She’s examining the stuff that comes out on the floss and then putting it on her tongue. Just writing this down is enough to stimulate my gag reflex.

Of course flossing is part of good hygiene, it’s something we should all do, not just the morning we have our teeth cleaned, etc., etc., so before you alert the ADA, you should know I’m simply advocating boundaries. Certain things are privacy-of-your-own-home things, like smoking in New York City and watching Deal or No Deal.

Are these people sane but just confused about public versus private spaces? Maybe they only appear sane but are really fresh from Belleview. I know there are crazy people, let’s call them quirky, everywhere. But in New York, quirky people aren’t confined to their cars and backyards. They’re on the train clipping their fingernails.

 

 

My subway blog

I’ll admit that I was a little concerned I wouldn’t find enough material when I decided to undertake this subway blog.

I’ll admit that I was a little concerned I wouldn’t find enough material when I decided to undertake this subway blog. I ride to work. I ride home. For days on end, it seems that uneventful. Then of course I remembered that this is New York, and when you’re riding with seven million people, things are bound to get interesting.

Here is the adventure that is my subway experience.

 

Absurdity in the new year

I’m feeling pretty sick of the world right now.

There is the post-holiday barrage of gym-weight-loss-remake-your-body-and-life ads that people will buy into temporarily, half-heartedly, and fully drop at the first sight of Valentine’s Day candy. I love watching people stock up on yogurt and have fast food for lunch anyway.

Which leads me to the new Burger King commercial. Some shaggy loser responds to the news of the Whopper’s demise with a demanding, "Get me a Whopper, now!" Cue the minimum-wage uniform behind the counter to suddenly produce all 670 calories, 39 grams of fat, and 1,020 mg of sodium, saving the day. People in the background clap. And I’m ashamed of my fellow Americans. What’s that you say the NSA is tapping my phone? Well, I have nothing to hide (oh look, Survivor is on). The news there’s a second genocide occurring in Africa right now? Well I could go for a burger right now. Hmm? Low-income children still going without insurance? Meh. Burger King stopped selling the Whopper? Hold. The. Phone. This is an outrage, I am pissed the f*** off. How can they do this? I mean, I want a Whopper, get me a Whopper, now!
That’s what you’re willing to fight for? Are you KIDDING ME?

Next up, the Iowa caucuses, specifically, Mike Huckabee’s minor win. First of all, in 1992 I was 11 years old, and even I knew how you could and could not contract AIDS. The entire world did, and so did Mike Huckabee. Quarantining the homo-plague carriers was not about a lack of expert information about the disease; it was just plain ignorant and bigoted.
Next, call me crazy, but I don’t know how well I’d sleep at night knowing that more and more rapists/murderers/pedophiles like Wayne DuMond were out of prison instead of serving their just life sentences, thanks to Mike Huckabee. I’ve read the details of the DuMond debacle. His first murders were committed (or so he bragged) with the "slaughter of a village of Cambodians." His second, or first legally documented murder, was in 1972, when he helped beat a teenager to death. He molested an underage girl for the first time a year later. In 1978 he committed his first rape. The 1984 rape of a teenage girl was the one that stuck in the justice system. Life sentence plus 20 years. Huckabee commuted the sentence to time served in 1996. After that DuMond was convicted of murdering a woman in 2000. If he hadn’t dropped dead of cancer in 2005, he would’ve been charged with the rape and murder of a pregnant woman. Pro-Llfe indeed.

The good people of Iowa voted for Huckabee above all the other Republican candidates. They say the evangelicals were responsible for his victory. Well, that’s just fantastic. My only hope is for New Hampshire, up here in my corner of the world, to show a little more common sense and intelligence.

Don’t even get me started on that con-artist and cult leader Joel Osteen and the "Gospel of Wealth."

Last, but not least, the new article today about how much the cervical cancer vaccinations hurt the poor wittle arms of girls. Shut it, princess. I had the first shot a month ago, and the ache was gone after an hour. If you experience more, say a day or two of pain, deal with it. Am I supposed to break out my violin because for the first time in history you are privileged enough to receive a simple shot that can prevent cancer? Oh I can just hear it now from the pro-lifers: "Do we want our daughters’ arms to hurt? This is what liberals and feminists and devil worshipers want for your little girls’ arm to ache for 24-72 hours so that they can freely fornicate with the devil starting at age nine! Jesus does not want your daughter to feel the sting! Can I get an Amen?!"  

These pretzels are making me thirsty.

 

His Dark Materials

Why is it that only Catholics are complaining about this movie? Or, really, any movie? Where are the other Christian denominations? The evangelicals (oh, that’s right electing politicians), the Protestants (oops splitting from the church over gay tolerance), Baptists, Unitarians, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons? I guess they have better things to do than stand outside of movie theaters stamping their feet and whining about a box office bomb.

Yes, The Golden Compass is a sinking stone, but I highly doubt it’s because of Catholic protestors (all nine of them outside one Florida cinema and Phil Donohue, the lone gunman). As some learned with The Da Vinci Code movie (another dud), protesting does not work (students of the 60s should’ve also figured that out after a while). It makes a lot of noise and ultimately draws more attention to the boycottee.

I’ve heard the little tummy rumblings about the controversy on the Web all week, but what spurred me to write this was a small editorial in The Providence Journal. I’ll post most of it:

Anti-Catholic Bigotry as Art
Surprise, surprise! Hollywood has done it again. An anti-God, anti-Catholic film is about to hit the big screen just in time for one of the most sacred holy days for Christians, the celebration of the birth of Christ.

The movie, The Golden Compass, directed by Chris Weitz and released by New Line Cinema, has hit theaters. The film is based on Philip Pullman’s trilogy, His Dark Materials. In this film the good guys are witches and the bad guys are an evil group of people in power, called The Magisterium. There is no other definition for the word Magisterium than the teaching authority and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

I would argue that if a script for a movie were presented to Hollywood that had as its villains an evil ruling class called The Homosexuals or The Feminists it would be branded homophobic, a hate crime or sexist, and never see the light of day. Yet, when Catholics are targeted and maliciously portrayed, Hollywood applauds and calls it artistic, enlightening and inspiring. What’s wrong with this picture?
The Rev. Giacomo Capoverdi 

I love how the italicized hatred just drips from his words. A man of God indeed. Too bad The Golden Compass does not target Catholicism but God (author Phillip Pullman is an atheist) and all religion. Too bad the U.S. Conference of Bishops gives the film two opposable thumbs up. And movie critics for the Catholic News Service have judged the film to be "lavish, well-acted and fast-paced." Aside from that, every other critic has dismissed the film completely, as well as moviegoers (it cost $180 million to make, and earned a paltry $28 million this weekend). The only applause seems to be coming from some of the Catholic community. That is, those have seen it anyway. And really, shouldn’t viewers be the only ones to label it good or bad?

There’s more. There’s always more. From Family Life Center (via Salon): 

"An Urgent Warning for Parents" cautioning that, after seeing the film, children "will rush out to buy and digest Pullman‘s God-hating and Catholic-bashing books. Philip Pullman’s work is about to bring millions of children into contact with the demonic."

After Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code, the Dark Materials, books and now the movie, you’d think that by now kids would be walking around foaming at the mouth, growling, fornicating in day care and hexing us all. But in the real world, children are simply innocent and beautiful and capable of all that is good. If parents of any religion or denomination could believe in honest education and faith in their own children and parenting skills, maybe they’d stay that way, too.

Some Catholics apparently do exactly that. Much like the many clergy who came to promote Harry Potter, Catholic Digest, the nation’s largest magazine for Catholics, suggests parents use the film as a springboard to “encourage your children to reflect about the issues the book raises in a thoughtful and intelligent manner." But sadly, most are incapable of this. As Stephanie Zacharek writes, "The idea that children might actually think for themselves is still too hot to handle. These Christian groups fear that, if children see the movie, they may want to read the books. And we can’t have children reading now, can we?"

I haven’t seen the movie. Not for any particular reason other than it just doesn’t interest me. I’ll get around to reading the books one day. In the meantime, despite being raised Catholic, I can think for myself and I do have better things to do with my time.

The Catholic protestors, however, obviously do not. Take the nine cinema protestors, including a mother and son. She thinks God will look kindly on her for holding up a sign and yelling, "Do you love God? No Golden Compass!" Her son went there straight from school because "I love God, I think it’s the right thing to do." Meanwhile, my atheist uncle accompanied me to the local food bank the other night to volunteer. Just sayin’.

My favorite piece in all of this was written by Mary Elizabeth Williams, a Catholic mother of two writing about allowing her daughter to see the film. Sanely, she does filter things she thinks will be inappropriate: "My only objection to the film isn’t philosophical, it’s practical: The movie is pretty damn intense." Williams knows she is the parent she has the power to say, "No you can’t, you’re too young," rather than a hysterical, "NO, you’ll end up worshipping Satan!"

I love a writer who can be both cheeky and dry at the same time: “As far as I know, Bill Donohue has not yet seen The Golden Compass. I have. I suspect it would piss him off.” Someday, I hope to follow her parenting philosophy: I want my children to understand that human beings and institutions are fallible. That sometimes those who claim moral authority can traffic in corruption and abuse. I want them to be angry at every wrong perpetuated in the name of God. To question authority. To be feisty troublemakers for positive change. I’ve told my daughters that no one knows for certain that there’s a God or a heaven. I always thought that was the beauty of faith that it rests on our willingness to believe in the things we can’t prove…But I would rather they grow up to be kind, generous unbelievers than sanctimonious, blindly dogmatic Christians.

Now, to my fellow human beings: quit whining and go make the world better!

 

Mitt Romney’s “JFK” speech

Faced with concerns over his faith, Mitt Romney delivered his "Faith in America" speech about politics and religion on December 6, 2007, at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.

It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the first lady, and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential Library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the president as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

Americans face a new generation of challenges. Radical, violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people."

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution  and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s "political religion" the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism, but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state, nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God," and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty."

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office is this: Does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are "thrown into the world all equal and alike."

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom-loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that century’s terrible wars no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me …"

My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self-evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty  not as a matter of policy, but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand, so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too "enlightened" to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom … killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. They were too divided in religious sentiments, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine author of liberty. And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed with freedom’s holy light.

God bless this great land, the United States of America.

personal stories. global issues.