The Red Shirts demand that, within 30 days, Prime Minister Abhisit step down and that the government holds new elections. The Prime Minister has no intention of negotiating with the Red Shirts, citing their use of violence and intimidation in the grenade attacks.

Paul De Neui is a member of the North Park Faculty and was a missionary in Thailand from 1987 until 2005. He was able to give some insights into why the Thai people are protesting and why the government is not taking their demands seriously.

Thailand is a constitutional monarchy governed under a parliamentary democracy. Since the implementation of this system in 1932, only two Prime Ministers have served out their whole term, and they were supported by the military.

Thailand has a cycle of leaders becoming corrupt and being overthrown in a military coup. Thailand’s democracy is not strong enough to prevent corruption without intervention behalf of its King, who is a power figurehead, and the military.

Ever since 2006, the people now vote for their Prime Minister directly. This may have seemed like a way to strengthen Thai democracy, but, as is seen by the current crisis, it did not work. According to De Neui, the majority of Thai people have only 4th to 6th grade education. They are easily swayed by the promises of a corrupt politician.

I also had the opportunity to talk with Zach Lovig, a seminary student who has traveled to Thailand and will travel there again with a group of North Parkers in a few weeks. He explained that Thai democracy is further weakened by the overall mindset of the people; their beliefs are not compatible with democracy.

The Thai people like to put forth a façade of pleasantness. Most of the country’s citizens identify themselves as Buddhist, and, due to Buddhist philosophy, they believe that you are born into your class because of your actions in a previous life. The poor withstand mistreatment on the part of the government, because they, to a certain extent, understand that they are getting what they deserve.

All this said, in a culture where everyone tries to get along and accept their situation, barricades and grenades must be taken seriously. Still, says De Neui looking at the Thailand’s history, “it is most probable that these protests will blow over.”

According to the Washington Post, Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer “signed into law a bill to require police to determine if people are in the country illegally if there is ‘reasonable suspicion’.”

The phrase ‘reasonable suspicion’ is what makes this law controversial. In a state that borders Mexico, what sorts of people would police suspect to be in the country illegally? Critics of the law say that it will only lead to racial profiling and bigotry, all aimed at members of the Latino Community and any other citizen who, based on their skin color, could be mistaken as Latino.

Representative Luis Gutierrez, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force, said that he hasn’t “seen the Latino community nationwide react in such a forceful way to an attack on immigrants since 2006, just after House Republicans passed a measure to criminalize and deport all undocumented immigrants and their families.”

Not just members of the Latino Community will be adversely affected by this law. The law gives police the power to question and arrest those who cannot prove that they are legal residents.

According to FoxNews, Phoenix Mayor, Phil Gordon, said that “anyone who doesn’t carry an Arizona license—children under 16, seniors who don’t drive and people from out of state—could be ‘at risk of being arrested and turned over to (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)’.”

Illegal immigration has long been a problem for the United States. According to a report done by CNN in 2004, around “7-20 million” live in our country illegally. The estimation is so broad because of these individuals’ illegal status.

Employers, especially farmers and factory owners, hire illegal immigrants because they will work for cheaper wages, in worse conditions, and for longer hours. The work that U.S. citizens deem below them gives immigrant families hope for the future.

With impoverished nations to the south and employers so willing to hire illegal immigrants in our own country, illegal immigration is a serious issue that won’t go away any time soon; it is an issue that must be addressed. But, is racial profiling really the right way to control immigration? Would an investigation into the businesses and individuals that hire illegal immigrants not be more appropriate?

The United States, and especially Arizona, has a history of racial profiling in times of fear or instability. During World War Two, Japanese citizens were sent to internment camps, most of them in Arizona, for the duration of the war. These citizens were, based on their nationality alone, stripped of their rights as citizens. Now, Latino Americans in Arizona will be, because of their skin color, in constant fear of being questioned or arrested.

Many believe that this law is Unconstitutional, because the fourth amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Does skin color really qualify as probable cause?

President Barack Obama called this law “misguided” and believes that this law displays, beyond a doubt, that immigration reform in the United States is, now more than ever, absolutely necessary.

These remarks come in response to the recent child abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in Ireland, and many other child-abuse scandals that have been recently uncovered in Ireland, Austria, Germany, the United States, and Chile.

The world was shocked to hear the story of the Irish Father Brendan Smyth who sexually abused large numbers of children during his 4o years in the priesthood. He wasn’t arrested until 1994, because, according to BBC News, church leaders gathered in 1975 to have “children sign vows of silence over complaints [against the] pedophile priest…”

So, in the wake of the uncovering of so many cases of child molestation, the Pope and other Church leaders were forced to engage in damage control. The Pope has visited victims and issued a formal statement saying- “I can only share in the… sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful criminal acts.”

Bertone connected homosexuality to these sinful criminal acts when he said that “many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true…that is the problem.”

There is no scientific proof for Bertone’s statements, and, in fact, science has found that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles.

It is taboo to discuss in the Catholic Church, but many are, according to BBC News, seeing a connection “in some church quarters between celibacy and the psychological problems suffered by many priest pedophiles.”

Cardinal Bertone was extremely critical of the priests involved in the child sex-abuse scandals, but his criticism, according to the New York Daily News, “was undercut by using homosexuality as a scapegoat.”

Bertone’s remarks have outraged the LGBTQ community and gay rights activists across the world, believing that the Church should focus on solving its problems, not deflecting blame.

Early Wednesday morning, a succession of highly intense earthquakes, the worst of them recorded as magnitude 6.9 struck the mountainous Tibetan region of Western China.

According to the Associated Press, the quakes were recorded as “killing at least 589 people and injuring more than 10,000.”

The population is mostly poor herders and farmers who live in wood homes that are patched together with mud. These homes were almost immediately demolished by the quake and its aftershocks.

Hospitals are overcrowded and undersupplied, and relief workers don’t have the tools they need to dig through the rubble. Also, about 200 relief workers are reported to have been lost in the mudslides that have followed the quakes.

The region sits at 13,000 feet above sea level and is surrounded by mountains, making rescue operations and relief efforts extremely difficult.

The American Red Cross has pledged $50,000 toward the relief effort and will offer more assistance as needed.

The protesters even went as far as collecting their own blood to dump outside the Prime Minister’s home (the color red is symbolic for the Thai people, and one spills blood outside an advisory’s home to curse them).

Now the protesters are getting attention internationally not for their odd protest tactics, but for their numbers. There are so many protesters in Bangkok, both from the rural areas and the city, that the main area around which the protesters have been concentrating, the commercial district, has been shut down.

According to the New York Times, “the provocative move to shut down the area infuriated many Bangkok residents and elevated what was major annoyance for the Thai government to a full-blown national crisis.”

The protesters have crippled the commercial district and have pledged to relocate; their goal is to draw the attention of the government, not to irreparably harm the Thai economy.

At this point, there are too many protesters for the government to regain control without violence or concessions. This problem is not just going to go away. A rice farmer from rural Thailand told the Times that the protesters will stay in Bangkok “until they dissolve Parliament.”

This issue is far from over, and, until the Thai government takes their demands seriously, the Red Shirts will continue to find new ways to try and get their leaders’ attention. While the protests have been extremely disruptive, they have remained non-violent; However, with their demands still unmet, how long will that last?

President Obama ran on a few key promises, one of them being creating jobs and, through that,  lowering the amount of citizens unemployed.

The President said “we were losing an average of over 700,000 jobs each month.” Now this year, due in part to some “unpopular measures” on behalf of the Obama Administration, an average of 50,o00 jobs have been created each month. This past month saw the creation of 162,000 new jobs.

Of course, many Republicans believe that to see Obama’s success, one must turn a blind eye to a lot of failures. They claim that the stimulus package was a failure and that any jobs created are temporary.

According to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, “it is unacceptable for President Obama to declare economic success when unemployment remains at 9.7 percent and a large portion of the job growth came from a temporary boost in government employment.”

This temporary boost in employment refers mainly to the 48,000 workers hired temporarily to conduct the U.S. Census. Still, Christiana Romer, of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, believes that March’s figures show “continued signs of gradual labor market healing.”

15 million people are unemployed in America, and while some disagree on what measures will fix that problem, all can agree that something must be done.

The bill has been waiting 6 months for a vote due to strong disagreements as to what health care reform in the United States should look like. Many Democrats were in favor of a national, Government-run, public health care option. Republicans were more in favor of reforming the current system, believing that a Government take-over would aide in destroying the United States economy.

Still, because the Democrats are the majority party in Congress, Republican opposition was not enough to prevent Obama’s health care reform from passing. What kept the bill in limbo for so long was the opposition of a select group of more conservative Democrats.

Due to the bill’s 2,000+ page length, many in Congress had not read the entirety, or even half for the matter, of the bill. Then, through the research of family values groups on the Hill, it was discovered that the Government-run health care plan would include abortion as a part of “basic care.”

This discovery further angered Republican members of Congress, who were concerned with the detrimental economic effects such a large undertaking as government-provided health care will have on our country; it is estimated that health care reform will cost around 940 billion dollars.

This discovery also angered pro-life Democrats, who upon learning of the abortion aspect of Obama’s health care plan, vowed that although they supported an affordable health care option for all Americans that is Government run, they would never support federally-funded abortions.

The arguments, committee hearings, tea parties, and conferences continued into the fall and winter, but the bill was no closer to being passed. Then Democrats came up with a solution: reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a measure that allows a bill to pass with a simple majority if it would reduce the deficit. According to Congressional Budget Office numbers, this bill will reduce the deficit, so it qualifies for reconciliation. Still, opponents argue that the CBO numbers are flawed and that allowing this bill to pass by simple majority, especially a bill of this magnitude, is wrong.

Reconciliation is not being used on the bill itself but, according to The Hill, “a package of changes to that legislation that will now be considered by the Senate under budget reconciliation rules that will prevent Republican senators from blocking the bill with a filibuster.”

Even though the bill only needed a simple majority to pass, the bill still needed the support of pro-life Democrats to gain a simple majority. So, on the day of the vote, President Obama, through an Executive Order, promised restrictions on federally-funded abortions.

This led enough pro-life Democrats to support the bill, and, around 10 at night, the bill passed.

To Democrats, this bill is the start of a bright new future in the United States of America, a future where all citizens will have health care. To Republicans, like Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Democrats, with this bill, “will finally lay the cornerstone of their Socialist utopia on the backs of the American people.”

You decide.

Consequently, thousands of red-shirted protesters, many on motorcycles, have flocked to Bangkok to try and gain recognition and support.

What is most interesting is the dramatic form of protest that the red-shirts have chosen. According to BBC news, protesters have collected and spilled “their own blood outside the government headquarters and the prime minister’s private residence.”

Many, in Thailand and around the world, have criticized the red-shirts for wasting blood and, through spilling the blood in the streets, creating hygiene problems within the city.

This spilling of blood, though, is deeply rooted in Thai symbolism; it is not just a ploy to use the grotesque to get media attention. According to BBC news, “the blood spilling was a sacrifice for democracy and a curse on the government.”

In Thailand, technology and modernization seem to co-exist with the mystical and supernatural. It is just as important to call upon symbolism and astrology for help in protest as it is to draw media attention.

Historically in Thailand, there has always been a reliance on the citizens’ call upon astrology and supernatural forces for guidance after military rule.

When it seems that corruption is too big to tackle, human beings always seem to call upon a higher power for guidance. Whether or not a larger force is helping, is truly helping us in our cause, there is power in belief.

In a speech she delivered to the GMA, Mrs. Obama said, “I’m here today to urge all of you to…go farther, because the truth is we don’t have a moment to waste—because a baby born today could be less than a decade away from showing the first signs of high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or Type II diabetes, if he or she is obese as a child.”  This was one of her most gripping speeches since her campaign launch on February 9; especially as she is targeting childhood obesity and marketing, two issues that have been around for years (suntimes.com).

In a huge effort to avoid taxation on junk foods and avoid government intervention, members of the GMA have voluntarily changed ingredients in over 10,000 products in recent years to cut fat, sugar, sodium and calories.  They have also changed and diminished the number of ads marketed to children.  Although they are in alliance for the “Let’s Move” campaign, Mrs. Obama spoke to the GMA to push them for deeper changes by stating, “We need you to not just tweak around the edges but entirely rethink (your) products.”  She went on to add, “Products aimed at kids need… more nutrients…[that] doesn’t mean decreasing problematic ingredients with small amounts of beneficial ones…  [That] doesn’t suddenly make these products good for our kids” (suntimes.com)

In response to Obama’s staunch hand in this matter, PepsiCo plans to remove all full-calorie, sweetened drinks from schools worldwide by 2012 to reduce childhood obesity, highlighting the first move of its kind by a major soft drink producer.

This past year, the World Heart Federation was in negotiations with soft drink manufacturers to remove their beverages from schools to combat childhood obesity.  PepsiCo’s move was in line with their goals because their products effect students 18 and under, said Pekka Puska, president of the group, which hopes other companies move in the same direction.  Coco-Cola recently changed its global sales policy to refuse to sell its drinks worldwide in primary schools unless requested by parents or school districts (Tribune).

PepsiCo has agreed to sell only water, fat-free or low-fat milk, and juice with no added sugar in primary schools.  In secondary schools, those and low-calorie soft drinks will be sold (Tribune).  The GMA was apparently eager to work with Michelle Obama, who has no particular government policy or plan of action mapped out.  Scott Faber, GMA’s vice president of federal affairs said, “We [have] never had this type of leadership from the White House.”

According to the Washington Post, “Hussein al-Yemeni, the man killed in the attack, was identified by an intelligence official as among al-Qaeda’s top 20 leaders and a participant in the planning for a Dec. 30 suicide bombing at a CIA base in the province of Khost in eastern Afghanistan.”

So, why is this one man’s death top news? Certainly there are many other Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives ready to pick up the slack. Can we really trust that this a true breakthrough in our anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East?

Well, according to CIA Director Leon Panetta, we can. In fact Al-Qaeda is, says Panetta, “scrambling” and in complete disarray. Al-Yemeni’s death is not simply one less powerful enemy, but a symbol of success in an on-going campaign in the tribal regions of Pakistan.

In fact, reports Reuters, “Al Qaeda’s disarray was so profound that one of its lieutenants, in an intercepted message, pleaded to bin Laden to come to the group’s rescue and provide some leadership.”

Some in the United States may look upon this success with cynicism. This is understandable. Does anyone remember 2003’s “Mission Accomplished” sign?

Our engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan are far from accomplished, and the War on Terror, in all its ambiguity, is far from over. But, here is some food for thought–

If we lose our optimism about the future, have we not already been defeated?

Of course, this offer of protection came with a condition, which was, according to Newsweek, “Israeli flexibility in the West Bank.”

What does “flexibility in the West Bank” mean? Well, Israel plans to build homes and hotels in East Jerusalem, the part of Jerusalem that is, according to the Oslo Accords, a part of the West Bank and under Palestinian control.

This sort of conditional offering is common in the US-Israel relationship. Israel has had many enemies since its 1948 formation and has relied heavily on US support, support that has almost always come on the condition that Israel makes more efforts toward peace.

According to Newsweek writer Aluf Benn, “The idea of foregoing the settlements for protection from Iran—as Biden was suggesting—is just an extension of that understanding.”

This time, though, Israel did not make concessions for support. Israel considers the eastern part of Jerusalem to be a part of their eternal capital. They have no intentions to stop building and no plans to make peace concessions if it means forgoing future control of East Jerusalem.

So, discovering this on the spot led to some interesting remarks. Vice President Biden, flustered at Israel’s clear slap in the face, as many in the media have dubbed it, actually used the word “condemn” in speaking of his displeasure with Israel’s policies.

“I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for the new housing units in East Jerusalem”, Biden said.

After he was given more time to think through a more diplomatic response, Biden said, as reported by Newsweek, that the United States is “determined to keep the pressure on Iran so that it will change its course. And as we do, we will also be seeking to improve relations between the Israelis and Palestinians. They are connected indirectly, but there is a relationship.”

Israel is, it seems, tired of U.S. peace demands that continually get in the way of its plans to extend the nation until it spans over all the land they believe is eternally there’s. Still, they depend on the U.S. for fiscal, military, and diplomatic support.

Despite this recent verbal scuffle between the Israeli Prime Minister and Vice President Joe Biden, President Obama assured the world last Thursday that there is “no crisis” in Israeli-U.S. relations.

“Israel is one of our closest allies, and we and the Israeli people have a special bond that’s not going to go away,” Obama said in an interview with Fox News. ”But friends are going to disagree sometimes,” Obama said.

The Associated Free Press reports that, “in late January, China announced it was suspending military ties with the United States and punishing US companies involved in a 6.4-billion-dollar weapons sale to Taiwan, which Beijing considers a rebel province.”

Then on Thursday, February 18th, two Nobel Peace Prize winners, President Obama and the Dalai Lama, met to discuss human rights issues in the Dalai Lama’s native country of Tibet.

China, according to msnbc.com, “accuses the Dalai Lama of seeking to remove Tibet from Chinese rule and objects strongly to all contact between him and overseas leaders.”

The meeting between the Dalai Lama and President Obama was low-key. The President didn’t allow journalists access to the meeting, there was not a welcoming ceremony, and the meeting wasn’t even held in the Oval Office; it was held in the White House map room.

The Dalai Lama has been visiting U.S. presidents for nearly 20 years to discuss the state of Tibet, but the meetings have always had to be handled delicately because of the U.S.’ ties to China.

The Dalai Lama has been fighting for more Tibetan autonomy since China sent forces to occupy the nation in 1950. He wants China to allow for the preservation of the Tibetan culture, for more rights to be granted to its people, and for Tibetans to be allowed to play a larger role in how their country is run.
According to msnbc.com, “the Dalai Lama chided Beijing [after his meeting with President Obama] for taking a ‘childish’ and ‘limited’ approach to Tibet’s quest for greater autonomy and said Obama had been ‘very much supportive’ of his views on human rights and the concerns of the Tibetan people.”

The meeting of Obama and the Dalai Lama seems natural, considering both men are Nobel Peace Prize winners, leaders of their people, and supporters of human rights. Unfortunately, their meeting is yet another direct insult to China, the nation to which the United States owes 1 trillion dollars.
Economically, can the United States afford to bite the hand that feeds it? Morally, can the United States ignore the actions of a suppressive regime?

Nelson Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 for his work with the African National Congress to end apartheid.

Apartheid was the legal system of segregation in South Africa until 1990, when the current president, F.W.  de Klerk lifted the ban on the African National Congress and freed Nelson Mandela from prison.

In the three years after Mandela’s release from prison, 27 years after his sentencing, apartheid was dismantled, all South African citizens were given the right to vote, and, in 1994, Mandela became the nation’s first democratically elected president.

Despite deep-rooted prejudices, Mandela was, through his contagious hope and reconciliatory attitude, able to peacefully lead South Africa in its change from an apartheid regime to a democracy.

Crime, poverty, and AIDS are growing concerns in South Africa and South African leaders are, according to Bloomberg.com writer Mike Cohen, “still struggling to change a society in which whites earn, on average, seven times more than blacks and one in four people don’t have jobs.”

Still, Mandela’s spirit of hope is very much alive and guiding South Africa toward an even brighter future.

As Nelson Mandela said, “after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there they are more hills to climb.”

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” Obama said.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was enacted in 1993. President Clinton had sought to end discrimination in the military on the basis of sexual orientation. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell [and don’t investigate]” was a sort of compromise between Clinton and Congress.

While members of the military would not be forced to disclose their sexual orientation and their sexual orientation would not be investigated, it was also determined that homosexuals in the military would be prohibited from disclosing their homosexuality while on duty.

While this policy of omission was not the progressive step toward equality for which Clinton had hoped, he was still confident that the legislation would cut back on homosexual-related discrimination and hate crimes within the military; incidentally, it did not.

Now, 17 years and many debates later, President Obama and LGBT activists are asking for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to be repealed.  This, however, is easier said than done.

The repeal would, according to the Associated Press, “require an act of Congress,” which is a difficult process, especially considering the many differing opinions within Congress on this issue.

So, if its repeal is truly “years away,” as Associated Press writer Ann Flaherty says, why is the issue even being discussed? Certainly there are bigger issues on which the military needs to direct its focus.  According to senior military and defense officials “the goal…is to avoid the backlash that could result from imposing change too fast.”

CNN.com writer Elisabeth Bumiller reports that “both Admiral Mullen and Mr. Gates told the [Senate Armed Services] committee that there would be a Pentagon review, taking up to a year, to study how to implement any change before they expected Congress to act on a repeal.”

So, when it comes to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” don’t ask when.

You see, Danielle has relatives who live in Norway, and she wanted to study someplace in which she could truly discover things on her own. Sweden was another option, but so many other students were going to Sweden to study. Honestly, she told me, “I picked Iceland on a whim! I’ve always wondered what it would be like to live on an island.”

Iceland is not like the United States or like anywhere else in the world, for that matter. Danielle studied in Reykjavik, Iceland, a village nestled between  lakes, mountains, and the ocean. The main source of income for the people of Reykjavik is fishing, lamb, and tourism.

Danielle observed that island people have a different mindset. They are very proud of their small country. Many citizens travel all over the world, but usually return to Iceland.

The country was controlled by Denmark until 1944, then was a military base for the United States until 2006. Iceland has only recently gained its independence.  Their economy is suffering  without U.S. support, but they have no desire for support. In fact, while the government is trying to join the European Union, the people are completely against it.  They want to be completely independent.

The people of Iceland are very involved in their government. In fact, in Iceland you can make an appointment to meet  and discuss your concerns with the Prime Minister!

While the people are very involved in their own government, they try, for the most part, to stay out of world politics. They also frown upon allowing foreign business chains to open up in their small country. In fact, Iceland’s only McDonalds recently closed.

The Iceland people boast of their sagas which include some of the oldest histories we have. Their language has remained pure, so Icelanders can read their ancient sagas with the ease of reading a modern day novel.

With such a rich and proud history, it is not surprising that education is very important to the people of Iceland. In fact, the literacy rate is between 95-98%!  Danielle found that education was so important to the people of Iceland, that many adults were returning to school. Danielle had a 70-year-old woman in one of her classes!

What really made Iceland so special for Danielle was not her English classes or her independence, but the beauty of the country. Iceland is “one of the world’s hidden jewels. They are blessed with some of the richest natural diversity I have ever seen. On one island, you have geysers, waterfalls, hot springs, glaciers, volcanoes, mountains, and lakes. The sky seems closer, and the sunsets are the most beautiful I have ever seen. It is weird being back in Chicago.”

Some thought Danielle was crazy for going somewhere so cold. After all, she could have chosen to study somewhere warm.  “I can handle anything; I’m from Minnesota!” was Danielle’s response.

The hardest part about being in Iceland was not the cold or the fact that she was one of the only inhabitants without blonde hair, but that she was in a country whose citizens were either extremely agnostic, indifferent, or complete atheists. There is an Icelandic saying that you go to church to be baptized and then confirmed. You say goodbye to the church until you get married, and then you don’t return again until you are coming back in a box.

All and all, despite the hardships, Danielle is extremely grateful for her experience and encourages all of her fellow students to study abroad. The growth she experienced while trying to acclimate herself to another culture completely on her own has prepared her to handle whatever life brings her way.

So, for those of you who have never heard of Martinique, here is some information:

“The history and culture of Martinique is actually very hard to explain,” writes Katie. “Life here can be summed up in one word: Creole. That is to say, everything here is mixed and blended together, from the cuisine all the way up to the politics. Martinique is an overseas department of France, meaning that it is technically 100% a part of France. Its heart, though, is pure Antillean, 100% West Indies, 100% unique.”

Martinique has had a very tumultuous history, and, in fact, is still experiencing much dissension.

Katie writes, “there was recently a vote in each separate overseas department to determine how to try and gain more autonomy from France. I cannot speak to the situation in the other overseas department, but I do know that here in Martinique, voting to remain very much a part of France was not necessarily to say that they were proud to be French.”

Katie’s host mother explained to her that Martinique is basically “between a rock and a hard place. Unemployment is still through the roof and the standard of living is extremely high. In fact, unemployment in the French Caribbean is the highest of the entire European Union. Unfortunately, the island’s economic stability is dependent on its connection to France. A split would lead to even more instability; it would be disastrous.”

As a global studies major, Martinique is an ideal location for Katie, especially since her focus is on the colonial relationship between France and the African Diaspora.

“Because of Martinique’s unique position as a modern day colony of France,” Katie writes, “it was the perfect place for me to come do my study abroad.” Yes, of course, Katie gets to escape the harsh Chicago winter and go to an exotic Caribbean beach in her free time, but that is just a bonus for her.

Katie lives about 30 minutes from her campus. She is taking mostly Caribbean literature and culture courses, all of which are in French. She writes that “the language is difficult sometimes; it is frustrating to feel like you can never really fully explain yourself the way you want to, but it is coming along.”

Though she has not been there long, she has already gotten the chance to travel around the island a little.  She’s explored both to the south, where there are beautiful, white, sandy beaches, and to the more mountainous north, where Mt. Pelée is located. (Mt. Pelée is an active volcano that killed 30,ooo people when it last erupted in 1902 ).

Her favorite activity so far has been going to a rally for Haiti in the nearby city of Les Trois Islets.

“It was a gathering of about 100 or so people who spent the entire day reciting poems, giving speeches, singing traditional Martinican or Haitian songs, and performing dances. The atmosphere was very somber sometimes, and people cried openly as they recited a poem or performed a dance. Other times there were moments of great celebration, especially during the singing of traditional Creole songs. It was a moment of solidarity, and I felt very honored and humbled to have been allowed to be present there.”

Katie’s life in Martinique is far different from her life at North Park. Katie is not only one of the few international students on her campus, but she is also a commuter, a freshman, a minority, and one of the handful of Christians. Katie writes that “she has never been more self-conscious in her life!” But, still, she knows that the experience will help her grow as an individual; in fact, she has already experienced some of that growth.

This statement stems from the Pope’s October announcement that Anglicans would be welcomed back into the Catholic Church; Anglicans could keep their own rites and traditions, provided they acknowledge the Pope as their leader.

Beckoning people back into the fold, has become a recurring theme for the Catholic Church in recent years.  There is currently a campaign entitled “Catholics Come Home,” which targets college students, and those who were raised Catholic but haven’t come to mass much since childhood.

In the past few years, the Anglican Church has gained a reputation for being extremely liberal. Their ordination of female priests and bishops, and their open acceptance of homosexuality and the blessed union of same-sex couples have made conservative Christians around the world cringe. But, apart from this liberal sect of Anglicans, the Catholic and Anglican churches are actually quite similar.

There is a significant overlap in their beliefs and traditions. So, how and when did the split between these two denominations occur? About 450 years ago, King Henry VIII wished to obtain a divorce from his current wife. The Pope was unsupportive, so King Henry broke off from the Catholic Church to create his own Church, The Church of England. The Church of England is a forerunner of the Anglican Church.

So, the separation of these two denominations was not rooted in theological disagreements, making a reunion far easier than one based in the belief systems of the people.  For instance, if Lutherans, whose founder split with Catholicism on the grounds that the Catholic Church was misunderstanding the words of Christ and abusing their parishioners, sought to reunite with the Catholic Church it would be a more difficult process.
The Pope’s actions seem noble.  As the Apostle Paul says, there is only “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

The controversy is not rooted in the Pope’s welcoming spirit, but in the reason for the split in the Anglican Church. Anglicans are not wishing to return to their Catholic brothers and sisters out of a desire for unity, but because, as Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols told the United Press International, they are “disillusioned with liberalizations such as ordination of gay priests and women bishops.”