Danny Bradbury wrote this article based on an NPR report about conflict metals, which are necessary for making smartphones and tablets. He notes that a US law requires companies to reveal where they mine the metals needed for their product, but that there is no law actually preventing the sale of conflict metals. Essentially, a company says, “We got our metals from X,” and the consumer decides whether to purchase the product.
The question this makes me ask:
Digital
communication is becoming increasingly useful, perhaps even necessary, to
social justice movements. Am I correct
in this assertion, and, if so, is there a way to use such media without being
hypocrites? The log in my own eye as
I ask this question is obvious. I own a
smartphone and make occasional edits to this blog with it. Predominantly, my blogging – about justice
and theology – happens on my PC. Although
laptops aren’t mentioned in Bradbury’s article, I expect there is some
technological overlap, but don’t know for sure.
Any hints, anyone?
I was interested (read: excited) to see my own denominational tradition* make an explicit call for Christians not only to work toward evangelism and discipleship, but also to strive for justice when sharing the teachings of Jesus Christ. This article focuses on statements made during the Bread of Life Conference in Nigeria, where Neville Callam and Emmet Dunn asked the church to be merciful and advocates for justice when proclaiming Jesus Christ.
The question this makes me ask:
What does
it mean to have a political faith? What
are some “obvious” justice concerns in Canada that Christians tend to overlook
or ignore? This article notes
injustices in different African countries despite a sharp increase of
Christianity in the region.
* I worshipped in a church that was part of the Canadian Baptists
of Western Canada while living in Vancouver.
The CBWC is part of the larger Canadian Baptist Ministries, which also
includes the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches, which is where I grew up
and came to faith.
Thomas Berg contributed this posting to The Christian Century’s blog about how Christian progressives should approach laws that conflict with their beliefs. Berg argues that Christian progressives should accept religious accommodations, even when they disagree with the accommodations that Christian conservatives are seeking. His argument is threefold. First, societal laws are not always correct and can be oppressive. Religious progressives who are attempting to change oppressive laws (immigration restrictions, for example) may need the support of other Christians. Having a history of negotiation would be helpful. Second, many groups are in favour of some progressive ideas and opposed to other ideas. Having an all or nothing mentality can prevent many good things from being done. Third, allowing for religious exemptions may allow progressive legislation to be supported by conservatives who are more concerned about being allowed to maintain their own values instead of imposing their values on others. Of course, this argument becomes moot if religious freedom is being used as a mask that hides harm against other people.
The question this makes me ask:
How does the
church discuss ideas with one another, as a church? I’m also interested in how we define
oppression and how we determine who to support if two social justice ideas seem
to conflict with one another.
The Debt
Crisis, not the food crisis, still hits the headlines (TheGlobeandMail.ca)
Eric
Reguley notes that the food crisis and the debt crisis began around the
same time (in 2008), but that the debt crisis continues to attract headlines
while the food crisis is no longer news.
Does this mean that the food crisis is over? Unlikely.
Two possible reasons why the food crisis is not as prevalent in the
popular press include 1) that the number 1 billion starving people appears
quite high (although it may be low, if we consider malnourishment and not just
caloric intake when determining hunger) and 2) that the press in wealthy
countries are focused on problems that immediately impact their consumers.
The question this makes me ask:
What do I
not know about? What is a responsible way to use news/information media? I feel
like criticizing media outlets for missing big stories is a bit unfair. I’m not sure Bell has a responsibility to use
its money to let me know stuff. It is
still frustrating, however, to see so much coverage about a new disaster du
jour, which are obviously not of lasting importance to the public at large
(despite the obvious lasting importance to the lives of the people and families
impacted). Even if news sources were
altruistic and fair and balanced (rather than simply claiming to be), I have
finite time and finite resources.
Realistically, I can only act on so much. Is me knowing about something enough? How do we balance local/national/global
needs?
No comments:
Post a Comment