All things pertinent.
Current Event 1
I’ll be using: http://www.religionnews.com/2013/12/05/pope-francis-launches-commission-tackle-sex-abuse/ as the source.
The article basically states that Pope Francis is launching a commission for the sake of reducing sex abuse within the Church. In light of the recent events [to which, many clergy members have been accused and convicted], Pope Francis ultimately seeks to end sex abuse within the clergy. The commission aspires to ultimately ‘set standards on reporting crimes to civil authorities, screen candidates for the priesthood and ministry, educate church works about abuse and establish rules for dealing with allegations, offer pastoral care for victims and their families, communicate news of abuse to the community, and to supervise clergy guilty of abuse.’ The Pope, according to the Vatican, will soon publish the names of those who will be on the commission. O’Malley, an American Cardinal, is perhaps the most ‘credible’ on the top of sex abuse within the clergy — he’ll be charged with forming much of the ideas, and for serving as a type of leader.
I don’t think that anybody could argue for the headlines as being ‘bad’ — the Pope is doing what a practical individual would do; when faced with awful crime, the simplest way is to attack the crime, in aspiration of extirpating it. Pope Francis is unique in that he’s taking the initiative in actually doing something; rather than protect those convicted, he takes a sterner approach, recognizing the inherent disconnect. He’s willing to put in extensive effort, not only to convey his thoughts on the poor [to which, by the media, he’s viewed extremely positively], but on the more controversial, ‘elephants.’
I am, of course, for the prevention and further extirpation of sex abuse within the clergy. It’s not an act which should be prevalent to the point of making headlines, and starting commissions. The Church, at its core, is meant to symbolize good-will, not any particular vitriolic, or antipathic group; sexual abuse serves to degrade an esteemed name.
Current Event 2
With the Central African Republic, there’s prevalent conflict between two major religion denominations: The Christians and the Muslims. Ever since March, when an Islamic rebel alliance overthrew a Christian leader, the nation’s been in civil strife; its population of 4.6 million is suffering greatly from the animosities. There are up to 2000 Christians currently seeking asylum. Seleka, the leader of the previous rebel alliance, is charged to be the main cause of this inherent struggle. With extensive damage done against the Christian side of the nation, individuals and governments alike, aspire greatly to end the conflict among the two religions. 400k displaced individuals, and 64k refugees were produced as a result of the struggle.
I’d of course, be against war among two religious denominations. I’m not so as much interested as to whose fault it is, or who provoked the situation in the first place; but, concerned primarily with the current situation, and the results of it. An act of war is between a country and another — the leader of the particular nation who declares it, finds it opportune to state that the welfare of the state supersedes that of each individual within it [meaning, he’s willing to put his country in worry for the sake of protecting it]. In this case, we find two religious denominations, one, nominally overthrew the other, and the other, is trying to protect what it has. I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn the Muslims, even though the article allegates that they initiated the battle [in Islamic scripture, it’s presumed that you seldom attack for the sake of taking land, it’s almost always defensive]; and I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn the Christians either. What is more pressing is the fact that there are individuals, who cared not for the religious bickering, and subsequent battle, who are suffering as a result. It’s mildly selfish for the leader of a country to put his people through a war, but it’s entirely selfish to leave those unrelated in the crossfire, for the sake of accomplishing a quixotic goal. I’d be against war in most situations. War only begets more war; it’s more practical to act mature within a struggle. In that case, it’d be much simpler to not only start alliances, but to maintain them; as a creditor would not want to lend money to an individual who’s constantly in and out of jail, a nation, or even a group of individuals will want to identify with the group that’s the most stable. In this case, a nation torn by religious differences is not stable.