Signs of Change 2008

By Jessica Bray

• 4,400 mile walk to raise awareness about Mother Earth
• Wikipedia Islamic imagery entry causes debate
• Oregon is ninth state to approve spousal rights for gay couples
• Mississippi bill tries to ban people who are obese from restaurants
• Will UK adopt aspects of Islamic Sharia law?

Sign up for your favorite features delivered by email

back to top

4,400 Mile Walk to Raise Awareness about Mother Earth

On February 11, 2008 a five-month journey across America will begin in Davis, California. This on-foot campaign is aimed at raising awareness about sacred sites, the next generation, and protecting the earth. Titled the Longest Walk 2, it commemorates a similar walk from San Francisco, CA to Washington D.C in 1978 by activists desiring to draw attention to American Indian Issues.

Karen Wright, however, a non-American Indian woman who is actively boosting local awareness about the walk, says, "The walk isn't just for Indians. It's for anyone who cares about Mother Earth."

While 200 people will be walking the entire 4,400 miles, hundreds more are expected to join for shorter distances. Communities along the way will offer lodging, food, and cultural exchanges in support of the participants.

The 1978 Longest Walk shed light on the American Indian Movement, and helped defeat 11 legislative bills threatening American Indian sovereignty. It was a huge catalyst for change, stated Tashina Banks Moore, the national communications coordinator for the 2008 event, and it drew the support of several thousands of people, including boxer Muhammad Ali and actor Marlon Brando.

Along their route, this year participants will pick up trash, recycle, and visit the sacred sites of communities they will pass through. "There seems to be momentum across the country and around the world to bring attention to how we as humans are living in our own communities," commented Moore. "It's important for us as individuals to be responsible."

Source: Ayala, Jamie. "Cross-country walk to make inland stop," January 6, 2008. The Longest Walk, http://longestwalk.org

Wikipedia Islamic imagery entry causes debate

A Wikipedia article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language is now the subject of an online protest due to its representations of Muhammad that have been taken from medieval manuscripts. The online petition at Care2 Petition Site states that in Islamic culture, pictures of the Prophet Muhammad and other humans are not allowed.

Wikipedia's Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's refusal to remove images due to its goal to represent "all topics from a neutral point of view," claiming that "Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."

The encyclopedia's neutral claim extends to the refusal of a compromise that would allow visitors to choose if they would like to view the page with or without the images.

Imposing a ban on depictions of people, specifically Muhammad, dates back to the 20th century. Paul M. Cobb, a Notre Dame professor of Islamic history says, "Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, but that doesn't mean that it's non-existent. Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscripts of Muhammad."

Online signatures and protests left on the petition site, however, come from all over the world, such as one Pakistani man's comment, "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture. It shows insensitivity toward Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."

Accessing online texts is a relatively new way of obtaining information on different cultures, and exposes ancient and sacred materials to popular culture. "What you are dealing with is not medieval illustrations," explains Cobb, "You are dealing with modern media and getting a modern response."

A blog linked to the online petition raises questions such as, is Wikipedia having a neutral point of view simply being used to promote an extreme point of view? Where does free speech stop? Anyone is allowed to contribute to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, not only those considered experts on Islam. Many that posted on the protest blog are concerned that several of the pictures not only show a disrespect and insensitivity for Islamic beliefs, but also misrepresent the Islamic culture. The petition currently has 174,561 signatures.

Source: Cohen, Noam. "Wikipedia Islam Entry is Criticized," February 5, 2008. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com and "Remove the Illustrations of Muhammad from Wikipedia," Feb 14, 2008. http://www.thepetitionsite.com

Oregon is ninth state to approve spousal rights for gay couples

Friday, February 1, 2008 Oregon became the ninth state to approve spousal rights for gay couples.

Couples who pay a $60 registration fee are now able to file joint state tax returns, inherit each other's property, and make medical choices on each other's behalf. Maine, Washington State, and California have also legalized domestic partnerships. Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New Jersey have passed laws approving either reciprocal benefits or civil unions. Massachusetts is currently the only state to fully legalize same-sex marriage.

The Monday following the ruling, many partners rushed for the Multnomah County Building. For Berdell and Casey Moffett-Chaney, it was their fifth attempt during their 25 years together. The first was a holy union ceremony, then a domestic partnership, a marriage in Portland that was later voided by the courts, and a still-valid marriage in Canada.

In March 2004, Multnomah County challenged Oregon's ambiguous marriage laws by authorizing same-sex marriages. About 3,000 couples took advantage of the new law, only to have their marriages voided when the law was ruled unconstitutional in November 2004, when voters passed Measure 36 defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Then in 2007, the law re-approving spousal rights for gay couples was tied up in the courts due to a debate about disqualified signatures. It was not put into practice until the current 2008 court decision.

After the 2008 ruling, several couples said that they hoped for eventual federal recognition such as sharing Social Security benefits. "The more people [who] take this legal step," commented Martha Aaron, bearing a rose given to her by her partner, "The more friends, families, and co-workers will know what is real in our lives, and how having legal protections is just what's fair."

Opponents of the 2007 domestic-partnership law have argued that Legislature disregarded the will of Oregon voters who passed the same-sex marriage ban, but U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman rejected the arguments that state elections officials should have made more efforts to contact voters whose signatures were disqualified. The signatures would have referred the domestic-partnership law to the November 2008 ballot.

Marian County Clerk Bill Burgess stated that he may be facing a rough re-election campaign, as it was his office that disqualified some signatures on these petitions. "But we have to treat every person with dignity and apply the law fairly," said Burgess. "I am happy the court's decision vindicated what county clerk's offices were doing."

Source: Frazier, Joseph B. "Gay couples register in Oregon," February 5, 2008. The Seattle Times Local News, http://www.seattletimes.com

Mississippi bill tries to ban people who are obese from restaurants

In Mississippi a bill was filed that would ban restaurants from serving food to obese customers.

Republican Representative John Read states that he was simply trying to instigate conversation on the "number one problem in Mississippi." "Sometimes," he stated, "You have to go a little extreme to get the dialogue started."

Mississippi is the first state where more than 30 percent of adults are considered obese according to a 2007 study by the Trust for America's Health.

The state House Public Health Committee chairman, Democrat Steve Holland, claims "While I appreciate the efforts of my fellow House members to help curb the obesity problem in Mississippi, this is totally the wrong approach." He continued, "It is too oppressive for government to require a restaurant owner to police another human being from their own indiscretions."

Others share Holland's opinion on governmental restrictions of peoples' diets. Senior research analyst for The Center for Consumer Freedom, J. Justin Wilson, claims that bills such as this take personal responsibility out of the problem, and this personal responsibility is really the only solution. The owner of Jackson restaurant, Al Stamps, agrees that there must be better ways to deal with this issue. "You can't do it by treating adults like children," he states.

Joseph Nadglowski, president of the Obesity Action Coalition said that the common conception that discrimination toward people who are obese will help them lose weight has been proven false by research. "We are not going to help those affected by obesity by further discriminating against them," he claimed.

Read told The Early Show that even though the bill will die, he hopes that the "fat-bill" will raise people's attention of obesity health risks. "We're not trying to discriminate against people." Read stated. "We want people to think."

Source: "Miss. Considers Restaurant Ban for Obese," February 5, 2008. CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com

back to top

Will UK adopt aspects of Islamic Sharia law?

Dr. Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, is advocating for British law to adapt parts of Islamic Sharia law.

Sharia deals with many aspects of daily life, including banking, business, contracts, family, politics, economics, sexuality, hygiene, and other social issues. Certain laws are regarded as divinely ordained and therefore apply to all relevant situations, such as the ban on drinking alcohol as an intoxicant. Many current day laws have derived from principals established by Islamic lawyers and judges.

Williams claims that the UK must "face up to the fact" that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system, and that an approach to law which simply says that there is one law for everybody is a bit of a danger. He continues to say that Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty."

The national director of Christian Voice, Stephen Green, is against adopting Islamic laws in any form. He said, "This is a Christian country with Christian laws," and states that if Muslims want to practice Sharia law then they are free to emigrate to a country where Islamic laws are already in operation.

Williams claims that the integration of laws from other cultures is already operating, such as Orthodox Jews and the Church of England being able to operate their own courts. He states that in the UK they already have a number of situations "in which the internal law of religious communities is recognized by the law of the land as justifying conscientious objects in certain circumstances."

Williams declares that there are ways of looking at issues such as marital disputes and financial matters that provide an alternative to divorce courts as the UK currently understands them, and therefore, Muslims should have the option of settling these matters within a Sharia court. However, he also acknowledges that several methods of Islamic law should never be incorporated into UK law, "Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the proactive of the law in some Islamic states." The differentiation between the accepted and non-accepted laws would rely on Sharia law being better understood.

Mohammed Shagiq, the director of the Ramadhan Foundation, said, "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success."

With the rapid globalization of today, the integration of law systems may begin to increase in order to accommodate the blending of different cultures.

Source: "Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable,'" February 7, 2008. BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/

back to top

Jessica Bray is editorial intern for DiversityCentral.com

back to top