Saturday, December 20, 2014

பல நோய்களுக்குத் தீர்வாக வெண்டைக்காய்

பல நோய்களுக்குத் தீர்வாக வெண்டைக்காய்
வெண்டைக்காய் சாப்பிட்டால் மூளை வளரும் கணக்கு நல்லாப் போடலாம் என்று சொல்லிச் சொல்லியே குழந்தைகளுக்கு ஊட்டும் அம்மாக்களை பார்த்துள்ளோம். வெண்டைக் காய்க்கும் அறிவு வளர்ச்சிக்கும் நேரடி தொடர்பு இருக்கிறதோ இல்லையோ இரத்த சோகை, மூச்சிரைப்பு, கொலஸ்ட்ரால், மலச்சிக்கல், புற்றுநோய், நீரிழவு வயிற்றுப்புண், பார்வைக் குறைபாடு என அனைத்து நோய்களையும் தீர்க்கும் சிறந்த மருந்தாக வெண்டைக்காய் உள்ளது.
கர்ப்பிணிப் பெண்களுக்கு மிகவும் அவசியமான ஃபோலிக் அமிலம் வெண்டைக் காயில் அதிகமாக உள்ளது. கர்ப்பத்ததில் உள்ள குழந்தையானது உள்ளே நல்லபடியாக வளரவும் முதல் ட்ரைமெஸ்டரின் போதான குழந்தையின் நரம்பு குழாய்களின் வளர்ச்சிக்கும் இந்த ஃபோலிக் அமிலமானது மிகவும் அவசியம்.
வெண்டைக்காயின் சிறப்பே அதன் கொழகொழப்புத் தன்மைத்தான். ஆனால் அந்தக் கொழகொழப்பு பிடிக்காமலே பலரும் அதை சேர்த்துக் கொள்ளவதில்லை. உண்மையிலே அந்த வழவழப்புத் தன்மையில்தான் வெண்டைக்காயின் அத்தனை மருத்துவப் பலன்களும் மறைந்துள்ளன.
இந்த வழவழப்பில் உள்ள நார்ச்சத்து அல்சர் பாதித்தவர்களுக்கு அருமருந்து. தவிர மலச்சிக்கல், வயிற்றுப் போக்கு உள்ளிட்ட வயிற்று உபாதைகள் அனைத்தையும் குணப்படுத்த கூடியது.

நோய் எதிர்ப்பாற்றல் அதிகமுள்ள வெண்டைக்காய் சிறந்த உடல்நல ஊக்கி என்றே சொல்லாம். இதிலுள்ள கரையும் நார்ச்சத்தானது கொல்ஸ்ட்ராலின் அளவைக் கட்டுப்படுவதன் மூலம் இதய நோய்கள் வருவதற்கான ஆபத்தை குறைக்கின்றது.

Legacy of Dr. BR Ambedkar stands irreconcilably opposed to Hindutva

Legacy of Dr. BR Ambedkar stands 
irreconcilably opposed to Hindutva 
By B.Sivaraman
cpiml.org
25 September, 2003
"Inequality is the soul of Hinduism," wrote Ambedkar. He characterized the oppressive caste system as the tyranny of Hinduism. After spending a lifetime in a crusade against the oppressive Hinduism, Ambedkar finally renounced Hinduism, and converted to Buddhism and exhorted his followers to do the same. It is an irony that BJP and other Sangh Parivar outfits are trying to appropriate such a historic personality as Dr. BR Ambedkar.
They have started unveiling Ambedkar photos and statues. Some Sangh ideologues have torn some quotations of BR Ambedkar on Islamic invasions out of context and misinterpreted them to fit Ambedkar in their own anti-Islamic framework. Vinay Katiyar took out an Ambedkar Yatra in UP. Mayawati unveiled a statue of Ambedkar's wife even though her party, the BSP, shamelessly betrayed the Ambedkar tradition by aligning with his arch ideological-political foes, the Hindutva brigade, in a coalition for the sake of power.
To attract dalits to its fold, the BJP made Bangaru Laxman its ornamental chief but he had to ignominiously bow down from office for accepting Tehelka cash bundles. But before his resignation he made a speech in the Nagpur session of the BJP National Council almost equating Ambedkar with Hedgewar. In fact, the actual history convincingly refutes the dirty tricks of the Sangh Parivar.
During the freedom movement, because of the failures and neglect of the Congress a few political streams arose independent of it. Because of the Congress neglect of Muslims and the influence of Hindu conservatism and Hindu dominance in Congress leadership, Muslims rallied independently under the Muslim League. For similar reasons, Sikhs also rallied under the Akali Dal. Brahminical upper caste forces dominated the Congress leadership and the party turned a blind eye to the aspirations of nationalities. In Tamil Nadu, Periyar EV Ramasamy fought against this, first through the anti-Brahmin movement and then went on to represent the nationality aspirations of Tamils.
It was Ambedkar who squarely put social reform on the agenda during the freedom struggle and launched a simultaneous movement against untouchability and the caste order that were the hallmarks of Hinduism, and championed the interests of dalits. In this he was far to the left of Gandhi. On the other hand, far to the right of Gandhian leadership there was first Hindu Mahasabha and later RSS streams, which often collaborated with the British and considered, with open hostility, even Gandhi too liberal. This hostility finally culminated in the assassination of Gandhi by an RSS man Nathuram Godse. Ambedkar was lifelong at loggerheads with the Hindu fundamentalists. Even in his Thoughts on Pakistan,(on which Katiyar's portrayal of him as an anti-Muslim Hindutva figure rests), he ruthlessly critiques the Hindu Mahasabha and Savarkar. He writes: "The Hindu nationalist who hopes that Britain will coerce the Muslims into abandoning Pakistan, forgets that the right of nationalism to freedom from an aggressive foreign imperialism and the right of a minority to freedom from an aggressive majority's nationalism are not two different things, nor does the former stand on a more sacred footing than the latter."(p.10-11) This clearly illustrates his criticism of aggressive mjorotarian nationalism. He furthercriticizes Savarkar, commenting that "strange as it may seem, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it". But Ambedkar exposes Savarkar's authoritarian intent: " Mr. Savarkar wants the Hindu nation to be the dominant nation and the Muslim nation to be the subservient nation under it." 
Such being the historical evolution of different political streams in India, it is clear that the legacy of Ambedkar and Hindu fundamentalism are irreconcilably hostile to each other. Hindutva forces today are trying to delink Ambedkar from his entire legacy, cover up their hostility towards him and try to appropriate him for electoral use. 
The fundamental hostility of the Sangh Parivar against Ambedkar was clearly brought to the fore by the vile campaign unleashed against him by RSS ideologue and presently a BJP minister in Vajpayee's cabinet Arun Shourie through his book Worshipping False Gods. Shiv Sainiks, the soul mates of Hindutva forces, also launched a struggle against Ambedkar's book The Riddles of Hindusim. This is the actual record of Hindutava forces vis-à-vis the heritage of Ambedkar, which they are trying to hide now in order to appropriate his glorious image for their own vested interests. 
Ambedkar was the architect of the constitution of India. Sangh Parivar is even opposed to the marginal secular and liberal features of this Constitution and that is why they have formed a committee to tinker with it. 
While Ambedkar had total enmity towards Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and other Hindu fundamentalists, he was generally pro-left and, befitting a true democrat in a semi-feudal society, he had a positive attitude towards Marxism though it was unfortunate that the communists in those days failed in their united front tactics and failed to develop a proper relationship with Ambedkar. This was part of their general weakness and shortcomings in India.

The contrast between Ambedkar and Savarkar
Savarkar's strategy of dissolving more than 3,000 castes into one pan-Hindu identity involves pan-Hindu temples, pan-Hindu dinners, inter-caste marriages, anti-untouchability programmes and the removal of injunctions on caste-ridden vocations and sea-voyage. Thus, Savarkar seems to have admonished Hindus to break off the seven shackles that according to him hindered the progress of the Hindu society. Did this programme really denounce Hinduism? The answer to this question has to be in the negative because the anti-caste programme particularly relating to injunctions against inter-caste marriage and advocating vedic rights for the shudras and ati-shudras given by Savarkar did not have vigour and genuine thrust to attack the Hindu shastras and caste system.
Savarkar's contention regarding inter-caste marriages looked to be so casual that he offered only a qualified support to such marriages, thus replacing the need for creating any conscious motivation necessary for the radicalmobilisation of the people towards reaching the desired end. Similarly, Savarkar's attempt to grant the study of vedas and vedic rituals to non-Brahmins though apparently liberal may effectively lead to the Brahminisation of the non-Brahmin castes thus according legitimacy to Hindu shastras.
On the contrary, Ambedkar considers inter-caste marriages as the effective means for abolishing caste system. But Ambedkar is also aware that inter-caste dining or even inter-caste marriages are not enough to eliminate casteism. He was of the opinion that for realising the desired goal of casteless society through inter-caste marriages it is necessary to destroy the belief in the sanctity of Hindu shastras. And for destroying this belief, Ambedkar suggests that people should not only discard the shastras, but they should deny their authority as Buddha and Nanak did. Thus; it can be argued here that socially radical Ambedkar was very unlikely to be attracted by Savarkar whose proposal, according to one of the sincere Savarkarites, contained reformative zeal aimed at revival of Hinduism rather than its denunciation. 
(From Appropriating Ambedkar by Gopal Guru, 
Economic and Political Weekly, July 6-13, 1991)
Ambedkar was never a Marxist. He could not carry forward his struggle for thoroughgoing abolition of semi-feudalism and against imperialism through a democratic revolution like Mao did in China. He focused mainly on the petty bourgeois and bourgeois intelligentsia from the oppressed communities and worked largely within the system representing their interests in the form of reservation etc. Nevertheless, despite this limitation, he remained an outstanding bourgeois revolutionary democrat who was head and shoulders above many in the Congress leadership and was clearly far more radical than Gandhi.
In the course of his differences against the Congress, he never made any concession to the Hindu Right and always remained hostile to them. 
Against Brahminical Hinduism During his boyhood Ambedkar had to suffer lots of personal humiliation due to untouchability. In Chowder Tank satyagraha led by Ambedkar in 1927, the upper caste Hindus attacked him and physically injured him. During the freedom movement Ambedkar emerged as the tallest leader of social reform in India. 
Ambedkar asserted: "I was born a Hindu, but never will die a Hindu. What is required is to get rid of the doctrine of 'Chatuvarna'. That is the root cause of all inequality and is also the parent of the case system and untouchability, which are merely other forms of inequality". It is relevant to note here that while both Hedgewar and Golwalkar upheld Manu and thus rationalised the caste system inherent to the Hindu religion, Ambedkar even burnt copies of Manusmruti through a campaign. On December 25, 1927 Ambedkar observed a "Manu Smruti Dahan Din", and publicly burnt Manusmruti. The struggle was known as the "Maha-Sangharsha" of Mahad Satyagraha, and it is an important milestone in dalit struggle against Brahmanism and Brahminical Hinduism. Manuvadis had comspired so that Ambedkar did not get a ground for the meeting, but a Muslim gentleman, Mr. Fattekhan, gave his private land to observe this protest. There was a strong reaction in the Brahmanical press, Babasahib was called"Bheemaasura" by one paper. Dr. Ambedkar justified the burning of Manusmruti in various articles. 
Ambedkar made a scathing attack on Hinduism: "I tell you, religion is for man and not man for religion. If you want to organise, consolidate and be successful in this world, change this religion. The religion that does not recognise you as a human being, or give you water to drink, or allow you to enter temples is not worthy to be called a religion. The religion that forbids you to receive education and comes in the way of your material advancement is not worthy of the appellation 'religion'. The religion that does not teach its followers to show humanity in dealing with its co-religionists is nothing but a display of a force. The religion that teaches its followers to suffer the touch of animals but not the touch of human beings is not a religion but a mockery. The religion that compels the ignorant to be ignorant and the poor to be poor is not a religion but a visitation!" 
He added this on the upper castes: "It is your claim to equality which hurts them. They want to maintain the status quo. If you continue to accept your lowly status ungrudgingly, continue to remain dirty, filthy, backward, ignorant, poor and disunited, they will allow you to live in peace. The moment you start to raise your level, the conflict starts. Untouchability is not a transitory or temporary feature; it is eternal, it is lasting. Frankly it can be said that the struggle between the Hindus and the Untouchables is a never-ending conflict. It is eternal because the religion which assigns you the lowest status in society is itself divine and eternal according to the belief of the so-called high caste Hindus. No change warranted by change of time and circumstances is possible." Such being the views of Ambedkar, those who offer political patronage to outfits like Ranvir Sena can have no claim over Ambedkar. 
The ideologues of Hindutva are trying to rationalise caste system saying that it is a division of labour. Ambedkar refuted this saying, "Caste System is not merely a division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. It is an hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other." While the Hindutva brigade is known for defending Manu and the caste system, Ambedkar made a trenchant criticism of the caste system associated with Hinduism: "There cannot be a more degrading system of social organisation than the Chaturvarna. It is the system which deadens, paralyses and cripples the people from helpful activity." He further added, "Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reforms and for killing all reform." Relating the inseparable relation between caste system and Hinduism, Ambedkar wrote, "Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors. The sanctity and infallibility of the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras, the iron law of
caste, the heartless law of karma and the senseless law of status by birth are to the untouchables veritable instruments of torture which Hinduism has forged against untouchables." 
In Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar has enumerated the evils of Hinduism in the following manner: 1) It has deprived moral life of freedom; 2) It has only emphasized conformity to commands; and 3) The laws are unjust because they are not the same for one class as of another. Besides, the code is treated as final. According to Ambedkar, "what is called religion by Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions." The Sangh Parivar is out to make this code the official code in India under their scheme of authoritarian Hindu rashtra. 
Sensing the alienation of dalits, many people, from Savarkar to Gandhi, made token gestures against casteism. The RSS was also forced to come out with some tokenist pronouncements. But Ambedkar put things in the right perspective by saying, "Caste cannot be abolished by inter-caste dinners or stray instances of inter caste marriages. Caste is a state of mind. It is a disease of mind. The teachings of the Hindu religion are the root cause of this disease. We practice casteism and we observe untouchability because we are enjoined to do so by the Hindu religion. A bitter thing cannot be made sweet. The taste of anything can be changed. But poison cannot be changed into nectar." 
Ambedkar even made a sarcastic comment against Gandhi: "There have been many mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove untouchability and to elevate and absorb the depressed classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come, mahatmas have gone but the untouchables have remained as untouchables." Ambedkar told dalits that, "You must abolish your slavery yourselves. Do not depend for its abolition upon god or a superman. Remember that it is not enough that a people are numerically in the majority. They must be always watchful, strong and self-respecting to attain and maintain success. We must shape our course ourselves and by ourselves." He further stressed that, "What you have lost others have gained. Your humiliations are a matter of pride with others. You are made to suffer wants, privations and humiliations not because it was pre-ordained by the sins committed in your previous birth, but because of the overpowering tyranny and treachery of those who are
above you. You have no lands because others have usurped them; you have no posts because others have monopolised them. Do not believe in fate; believe in your strength." 
It may be recalled that Advani recently raised a controversy over a Buddhist symbol like Ashoka chakra figuring in the national flag and a Buddhist symbol being the national emblem. Regarding their origin Ambedkar explained, "Even though Buddhism is almost extinct in India, yet it has given birth to a culture, which is far better and richer than the Brahminic culture. When the question of the national flag and the national emblem was being considered by the Constituent Assembly we could not find any suitable symbol from the Brahminic culture. Ultimately, the Buddhist culture came to our rescue and we accepted the Wheel of Law (Dhamma-Chakra) as the national symbol." No wonder, a Brahminical high-priest of Hindutva like Advani wanted to do away with these symbols introduced by Ambedkar and his colleagues. 
In his slanderous campaign against Ambedkar, the RSS ideologue Arun Shourie questioned the patriotism of Ambedkar. Ambedkar, however, defined patriotism thus, "I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians." And despite all his differences with the Congress, Ambedkar remained a staunch nationalist. 
For Ambedkar, the conception of a secular state is derived from the liberal democratic tradition of the West.
In contrast to the Gandhian misinterpretation of secularism as 'sarva dharma samabhava', Ambedkar said, "No institution, which is maintained wholly out of state funds, shall be used for the purpose of religious instruction irrespective of the question whether the religious instruction is given by the state or by any other body". He further explained the corruption of the concept of secularism in India, "This country has seen the conflict between ecclesiastical law and secular law long before Europeans sought to challenge the authority of the Pope. Kautilya's Arthshastra lays down the foundation of secular law. In India unfortunately ecclesiastical law triumphed over secular law. In my opinion this was the one of the greatest disasters in the country." 
Ambedkar effectively punctured the false supremacy of the narrow Brahminical elite: "In every country the intellectual class is the most influential class. This is the class which can foresee, advise and lead. In no country does the mass of the people live the life for intelligent thought and action. It is largely imitative and follows the intellectual class. There is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destination of the country depends upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest and independent, it can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis arises. It is true that the intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means and the use of a means depends upon the ends which an intellectual person pursues. An intellectual man can be a good man but he may easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily be a gang of crooksor a body of advocates of narrow clique from which it draws its support."
Though changing one's religion through conversion is not going to abolish the semi-feudal inequalities, Ambedkar's decision to convert to Buddhism in the evening of his life - just a couple of months before his demise on 16 December 1956 - only underlined his disgust and bitterness with the highly iniquitous Hinduism. About 2 lakh dalits converted to Buddhism along with him in October 1956. Since then neo-Buddhism has remained a trend. This clearly rattled the Hindutva bosses who are clamouring for anti-conversion legislation in every state. 
A thorough democrat 
Though Ambedkar headed the committee that crafted the Constitution of the democratic republic of India, he was never fully satisfied with the democracy which came to be established in India. In his opinion, "A democratic form of government presupposes a democratic form of a society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy. It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy. But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, and attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social organisation free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the unprivileged." "Democracy is not a form of government, but a form of social organisation", he asserted.
He further elaborated, "What we must do is not to content ourselves with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there is at the base of it, a social democracy." 
Ambedkar underlined the limitations of formal law and Constitution: "The prevalent view is that once the rights are enacted in law then they are safeguarded. This again is an unwarranted assumption. As experience proves, rights are protected not by law but by social and moral conscience of the society. If social conscience is such that it is prepared to recognise the rights which law proposes to enact, rights will be safe and secure. But if the fundamental rights are opposed by the community, no law, no parliament, no judiciary can guarantee them in the real sense of the world. What is the use of fundamental rights to the untouchables in India?" "If I find the constitution being misused, I shall be the first to burn it," he declared. 

Ambedkar also had certain premonitions about the rise of authoritarian forces in India which is coming true before our eyes: "On the 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. In politics we will be recognising the principle of one-man-one-vote and one-vote-one-value. In our social and economic life, we shall by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one-man-one-value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril". The Sangh Parivar outfits rally tribals and dalits only to use them to attack Christian missionaries as witnessed in Orissa or to launch pogroms against Muslims as seen in Gujarat, and thereby endanger democracy. To
frustrate the designs of the Sangh Parivar it is necessary that today communists and genuine Ambedkarites should come together to defend democracy from communal fascists, a democracy to establish which Ambedkar fought so hard. 
In his last days, Ambedkar raised a note of warning: "The point is that India once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only India has once before lost her independence, but she lost it by treachery of some of her own people...Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. . Will Indians place the country above their creed or creed above their country? I do not know, But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost forever. This eventuality we all must resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood!" The rise of Hindutva forces who totally cringe before the US imperialism but at the same time are bent upon establishing a fascistic Hindu rashtra has proved how correct this warning was. As Ambedkar called upon us, we must defend this freedom and democracy with the last drop of our blood. 


Ambedkar on Hindu Rashtra and IndiaIt has been a topic of endless discussion why Ambedkar in the constitution of India Article 1 said 'India that is Bharat'. A clue could lie in this passage:“If Hindu Raj becomes a reality then it would be greatest menace to this country. Whatever may Hindus say, actually it does not make a difference that Hinduism is a danger to Independence, Equality and Brotherhood. Thus it is an enemy of democracy. We should make all out efforts to stop Hindu Raj from becoming a reality.” ( Pakistan or Partition of India, Page 358)Ambedkar knew that India is not Hindustan and wanted to prevent any such claim... as is now being claimed that Hindutva is the same as 'Indian' and 'cultural nationalism'. 'Cultural nationalism' is facism, borrowed from the Nazis by the fathers of Hindutva V D Savarkar etc.The 42nd amendment put paid to any hope of a theocratic Hindu Rashtra, by adding 'secular' to the preamble.

Sweet Potatoes - good medicinal values

Sweet Potatoes are an incredibly nutritious food that are packed with antioxidants like beta carotene, vitamins C, E & D, and minerals such as manganese and iron. They are also high in potassium which helps to lower blood pressure by removing excess sodium and regulating fluid balance in the body. Sweet potatoes are an excellent anti-stress food and are known to help relax muscles, steady nerves, and balance cognitive function. They are also one of the best anti-cancer foods and can particularly help to prevent breast, colon, lung, skin, and oral cancers. Sweet potatoes are known for being easy to digest and are very good for ulcers, inflamed colons, digestive disorders, and constipation. Sweet potatoes contain compounds called phytochelatins that can bind to heavy metals such as lead, mercury, copper, & cadmium and safely remove them through the body. Mothers have even given children who have accidentally swallowed a metallic object such as a coin, plenty of sweet potato so that it will stick to the object and allow it to pass through easier. The health benefits of sweet potatoes are the most bioavailable when eaten raw, steamed, or baked. Try making a simple fat-free sweet potato soup by steaming sweet potatoes until soft and then placing in a blender or food processor and blend until creamy smooth. Spices such as cloves, cinnamon, ginger, chili pepper, or curry can be added for a flavor and nutritional boost. Baked sweet potatoes can be stored in the refrigerator and later sliced over a fresh green salad for a hearty lunch or dinner. Sweet potatoes are also delicious mashed with a drizzle of olive oil, coconut butter, or avocado. Sweet potatoes are a comforting, satisfying, and very healing food, consider finding more ways to include them into your diet.

Monday, December 8, 2014

Statement of Catholic Theologians on Racial Justice

Statement of Catholic Theologians on Racial Justice

Advent is a season of waiting and of hoping. In the face of conflict, distrust, and division – in the wilderness – we are called to cry out for a different way. In consultation with several others, CMTer and former law enforcement officer Tobias Winright has prepared a statement of commitment to racial justice, which names the particularly difficult hope we might bring to illuminate darkness. We are happy to share the statement here on this blog. Many Catholic theologians, including myself and my co-editor, Jana Bennett, have already signed on to the statement. Please pray and act for truth and reconciliation this season…
Statement: Catholic Theologians for Police Reform and Racial Justice
The season of Advent is meant to be a time when Christians remember the birth of Jesus Christ, when God became human, born on the margins of society. To the poor shepherds, the angelic host proclaimed “peace, goodwill among people” (Luke 2:14), which refers to a shalom that is not merely the absence of conflict, but rather a just and lasting peace, wherein people are reconciled with one another, with God, and indeed with all creation.  But this Advent, hope for a just peace must face the flagrant failures of a nation still bound by sin, our bondage to and complicity in racial injustice.
The killings of Black men – including but not limited to Eric Garner, Michael Brown, John Crawford, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice – by White policemen, and the failures of the grand jury process to indict the police officers involved, have brought to our attention not only problems in law enforcement today, but also the deeper racial injustice in our nation, our communities, and even our churches.
As Eric Garner’s dying words “I can’t breathe” are chanted in the streets, and as people of faith, we hear the echo of Jesus’ breathing on his disciples, telling them, “Peace be with you.”  His spirit-filled breath gives his disciples, then and now, the power and obligation to raise our voices about the imperative of a just peace in fragmented and violent world.
The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” speaks searingly to our headline divisions today. The “cup of endurance runs over” again for African Americans and many others of good will. Our streets are filled with those exhausted by the need to explain yet again “why we can’t wait.”
King challenged “white moderate” Christians for being “more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice;” and for preferring “a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.” This challenge to the White Christian community is as relevant today as it was over 50 years ago. Such a negative peace calls to mind the warning by the prophet Ezekiel, “They led my people astray, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there was no peace” (13:10).
Pope Francis’s warning of the explosive consequences of exclusion and fearful seeking of “security” based on such a negative peace are similarly prophetic:
“Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear.” Evangelii Gaudium, 59
As Catholic theologians, we wish to go on the record in calling for a serious examination of both policing and racial injustice in the US. The time demands that we leave some mark that US Catholic theologians did not ignore what is happening in our midst – as the vast majority sadly did during the 1960s Civil Rights movement.
● We pledge to examine within ourselves our complicity in the sin of racism and how it sustains false images of White superiority in relationship to Black inferiority. In the words of the US Catholic Bishops Conference, “Racism is a sin: a sin that divides the human family, blots out the image of God among specific members of that family, and violates the fundamental human dignity of those called to be children of the same Father.”
● We pledge to fast and to refrain from meat on Fridays during this Advent season and through the seasons of Christmas and Epiphany, as well as during Lent, as a sign of our penitence and need of conversion from the pervasive sin of racism.
● We commit ourselves to placing our bodies and/or privilege on the line in visible, public solidarity with movements of protest to address the deep-seated racism of our nation.
● We support our police, whose work is indeed dangerous at times, but we also call for a radical reconsideration of policing policy in our nation. We call for an end to the militarization of police departments in the US, and we support instead the proven, effective results of community policing. Rather than perpetuating an “us versus them” mentality, a community policing approach is more consonant with our Catholic convictions that we are all each other’s keepers and should work together for the common good of our communities.
● We call for a honing of the guidelines for police use of lethal force so that they are uniform in all states within the US and so that the use of lethal force, echoing Catholic teaching on “legitimate defense,” is justified only when an aggressor poses a grave and imminent threat to the officer’s and/or other persons’ lives.
● We support those calling for better recruiting, training, and education for our police so that they may truly and justly do what they have sworn, namely, to “serve and protect” their communities.
● We support new efforts to promote accountability and transparency, such as body cameras for police officers.
● Regarding the widespread dissatisfaction with recent grand jury decisions, and the perception that a conflict of interest exists between local prosecutors and police departments, we call for the establishment of publicly accountable review boards staffed with civilian attorneys from within the jurisdiction and/or for the appointment of independent special prosecutors’ offices to investigate claims of police misconduct.
● Our nation’s pervasive yet too often denied systemic racial divisions compromise our structures of justice – in our view so much so that we support calling for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to examine race in America. A precedent would be the 2004 Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission in North Carolina.
● In view of the recent US Justice Department’s report on the pattern of excessive force found in the Cleveland Police Department, we call for similar investigations of the Ferguson Police Department, the New York Police Department, and other police forces involved in the killings of unarmed Black citizens.
● We call upon our bishops to proactively proclaim and witness to our faith’s stand against racism They have authored pastoral statements in the past, and these documents need to be revisited – in parishes, dioceses, and seminaries – and brought to the forefront of Catholic teaching and action in light of the present crisis.
● As Catholic theologians and scholars, we commit ourselves to further teaching and scholarship on racial justice. Our faith teaches us that all persons are created in the image of God and have been redeemed in Christ Jesus. In short, our faith proclaims that all lives matter, and therefore, Black lives must matter, too. As part of this commitment, we pledge to continue listening to, praying for, and even joining in our streets with those struggling for justice through nonviolent protests and peaceful acts of civil disobedience.
We pray that all of these actions will move us closer toward the fulfillment of the hope of the Advent season, toward a time when “love and truth will meet; justice and peace will kiss” (Psalm 85:10).

Signatures (institutions are listed for identification purposes only):

1) Tobias Winright, Mäder Chair of Health Care Ethics, Associate Professor of Theological Ethics, Saint Louis University
2) Alex Mikulich, Jesuit Social Research Institute, Loyola University New Orleans
3) Vincent Miller, Gudorf Chair in Catholic Theology and Culture, University of Dayton
4) Bryan N. Massingale, Professor of Theological Ethics, Marquette University
5) M. Shawn Copeland, Professor of Systematic Theology, Boston College
6) Susan A. Ross, Professor of Theology and Chair of the Department of Theology, Loyola University Chicago
7) William L. Portier, Mary Ann Spearin Chair of Catholic Theology, University of Dayton
8) Richard Gaillardetz, Joseph Professor of Theology, Boston College
9) Christopher Pramuk, Associate Professor of Theology, Xavier University
10) Mark J. Allman, Professor of Religious and Theological Studies, Merrimack College
11) James F. Keenan, SJ, Canisius Professor, Boston College
12) Lisa Sowle Cahill, Monan Professor of Theology, Boston College
13) Nicholas P. Cafardi, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Canon Law, Duquesne University
14) Brian M. Doyle, Professor of Theology and Chair of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, Marymount University
15) Dolores Christie, Catholic Theological Society of America/John Carroll University (retired)
16) David Hollenbach, S.J., University Chair in Human Rights and International Justice, Boston College
17) William Cavanaugh, Professor of Catholic Studies, DePaul University
18) John Sniegocki, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics, Xavier University
19) Emily Reimer-Barry, Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Diego
20) Kristin Heyer, Bernard J. Hanley Professor of Religious Studies, Santa Clara University
21) Bradford E. Hinze, Karl Rahner, S.J., Professor of Theology, Fordham University
22) Kathryn Getek Soltis, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics and Director, Center for Peace and Justice Education, Villanova University
23) Joseph Fahey, Professor of Religious Studies, Manhattan College
24) Charlie Camosy, Associate Professor of Theological and Social Ethics, Fordham University
25) John Renard, Professor of Theological Studies, Saint Louis University
26) Kathy Lilla Cox, Associate Professor of Theology St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict
27) Nancy Dallavalle, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Fairfield University
28) Gerard Mannion, Amaturo Professor in Catholic Studies, Georgetown University
29) Laurie Gagne, Edmundite Center for Peace and Justice, St. Michael’s College
30) Christine Firer Hinze, Professor of Theology, Fordham University
31) Brian P. Flanagan, Assistant Professor of Theology, Marymount University
32) William J. Collinge, Knott Professor of Theology, Mount Saint Mary’s University
33) Nichole M. Flores, Instructor of Theology, Saint Anselm College
34) Stephen J. Pope, Professor of Theological Ethics, Boston College
35) Nancy Pineda-Madrid, Associate Professor of Theology and U.S. Latino/a Ministry, Boston College
36) Sandra Yocum, Associate Professor, University of Dayton
37) Patricia Beattie Jung, Visiting Professor of Christian Ethics, Saint Paul School of Theology
38) MT Dávila, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Andover Newton Theological School
39) James E. Hug, S.J., Spiritual Life Department, Adrian Dominican Motherhouse
40) Mary Doak, Associate Professor of Theology, University of San Diego
41) Anna Floerke Scheid, Assistant Professor of Theology, Duquesne University
42) Paulette Skiba, BVM, Professor of Religious Studies, Clarke University
43) Paul J. Wojda, Associate Professor of Moral Theology, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN
44) Marcus Mescher, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Xavier University
45) Christopher Denny, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, St. John’s University
46) Kevin Glauber Ahern, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Manhattan College
47) Rachel Hart Winter, Director, St. Catherine of Siena Center, Dominican University
48) David DeCosse, Director of Campus Ethics Program, Adjunct Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Santa Clara University
49) Julie Hanlon Rubio, Professor of Christian Ethics, Saint Louis University
50) Holly Taylor Coolman, Assistant Professor of Theology, Providence College
51) Terrence W. Tilley, Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., Professor of​ Catholic Theology, Fordham University
52) Jason King, Associate Professor, Chair of the Theology Department, Saint Vincent College
53) Laurie Johnston, Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, Emmanuel College
54) Nancy M. Rourke, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Theology, Canisius College
55) Sally Vance-Trembath, Lecturer, Santa Clara University
56) Karen Teel, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Diego
57) Una M. Cadegan, Associate Professor of History, University of Dayton
58) Ron Pagnucco, Associate Professor, Department of Peace Studies, College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University
59) Mary Ann Hinsdale, IHM, Associate Professor of Theology, Boston  College
60) Mary E. Hines, Professor of Theology, Emmanuel College
61) Erin Lothes, Assistant Professor of Theology, College of Saint Elizabeth
62) Joe Torma, Professor of Theology, Walsh University
63) Bryan Froehle, Professor of Practical Theology, St. Thomas University, Miami
64) Matthew A. Shadle, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, Marymount University
65) Elisabeth Vasko, Assistant Professor of Theology, Duquesne University
66) Jana Bennett, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Dayton
67) Dana L. Dillon, Assistant Professor of Theology, Providence College
68) William George, Professor of Theology and Chair, Theology and Pastoral Ministry, Dominican University
69) Jon Nilson, Professor Emeritus of Theology, Loyola University Chicago
70) Patrick Lynch, S.J., Professor of Religious Studies and Theology, Canisius College
71) Darlene Fozard Weaver, Associate Professor of Theology, Director of the Center for the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Duquesne University
72) Matthew Ashley. Associate Professor and Department Chair, Department of Theology, University of Notre Dame
73) Tracy Tiemeier, Associate Professor of Theological Studies, Loyola Marymount University
74) David O’Brien, Emeritus Professor, College of Holy Cross and University of Dayton
75) Kate Ward, Flatley Fellow in Theological Ethics, Boston College
76) Eugene McCarraher, Associate Professor of Humanities, Villanova University
77) James P. Bailey, Associate Professor of Theology, Duquesne University
78) Debra Dean Murphy, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, West Virginia Wesleyan College
79) Amy Levad, Assistant Professor of Theology, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN
80) Jennifer Beste, College of Saint Benedict Koch Chair in Catholic Thought and Culture, Associate Professor of Theology, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University
81) Colleen Mary Carpenter, Sister Mona Riley Endowed Chair of the Humanities, Associate Professor of Theology, St. Catherine University
82) Todd A. Salzman, Professor of Theology, Creighton University
83) Jim Caccamo, Associate Professor of Theology, Saint Joseph’s University, PA
84) Kenneth Himes, OFM, Associate Professor of Theology, Boston College
85) Dawn M. Nothwehr, OSF, The Erica and Harry John Family Endowed Chair in Catholic Ethics, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago
86) Thomas M. Kelly, Professor of Systematic Theology, Creighton University
87) Elizabeth W. Collier, Associate Professor of Business Ethics, Co-Director of Center for Global Peace through Commerce, Brennan School of Business, Dominican University
88) Catherine Punsalan-Manlimos, Associate Professor, Seattle University
89) Julia Brumbaugh, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Regis University
90) David Burrell, Hesburgh Professor Emeritus, University of Notre Dame
91) Gerardo Rodríguez, Assistant Professor of Theology, Carroll College
92) Sandra M. Schneiders, IHM, Professor Emerita of New Testament Studies and Spirituality, Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University
93) Michael E. Lee, Associate Professor Theology, and Latin American & Latino Studies, Fordham University
94) Brian Stiltner, Chair of Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Studies, Sacred Heart University
95) Susie Paulik Babka, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, University of San Diego
96) Elizabeth Groppe, Associate Professor of Theology, Xavier University
97) David Cloutier, Associate Professor of Theology, Mount Saint Mary’s University
98) Martin J O’Malley, Research Scholar at the Center for Applied Ethics, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena
99) Christopher McMahon, Associate Professor of Theology, Saint Vincent College
100) Jeannine Hill Fletcher, Professor of Theology, Fordham University
101) Christopher Steck, SJ, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Theology, Georgetown University
102) Elena Procario-Foley, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Iona College
103) Gerald W. Schlabach, Professor of Theology, University of St. Thomas, MN
104) William Werpehowski, Robert L. McDevitt, K.S.G., K.C.H.S. and Catherine H. McDevitt L.C.H.S. Chair in Catholic Theology, Georgetown University
105) Timothy P. Muldoon, Division of University Mission and Ministry, Boston College
106) Stephen Wilson, Associate Professor of Theology, Spring Hill College
107) Kelly S. Johnson, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, University of Dayton
108) Andrew Staron, Assistant Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, Wheeling Jesuit University
109) Michele Saracino, Professor and Chair of the Religious Studies Department, Manhattan College
110) Claire Noonan, Vice President for Mission and Ministry, Dominican University
111) Stephen Okey, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Theology, and Religion, Saint Leo University
112) Anna Bonta Moreland, Associate Professor of Theology, Villanova University
113) Sallie Latkovich, CSJ, Director of Bible Study and Travel Programs, Director of Summer Institute, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago
114) Andrew Prevot, Assistant Professor of Theology, Boston College
115) Kimberly Flint-Hamilton, Professor and Chair of Sociology and Anthropology, Stetson University
116) Margaret A. Farley, Gilbert L. Stark Professor Emerita of Christian Ethics, Yale University Divinity School
117) Boyd Taylor Coolman, Associate Professor of Theology, Boston College
118) Edward Foley, Capuchin, Duns Scotus Professor of Spirituality, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago
119) Elizabeth Sweeny Block, Assistant Professor of Theological Ethics, Saint Louis University
120) John T. Pawlikowski, OSM, Professor of Social Ethics, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago
121) Robert Masson, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Theology, Marquette University
122) Deirdre Dempsey, Associate Professor, the Department of Theology, Marquette University
123) Jeanne-Nicole Mellon Saint-Laurent, Assistant Professor, Marquette University
124) Melody Layton McMahon, Director of the Library, Associate Professor, Co-Editor of New Theology Review, Catholic Theological Union, Chicago
125) Rita George-Tvrtković, Assistant Professor of Theology, Benedictine University
126) William McDonough, Associate Professor of Theology, St. Catherine University
127) David G. Schultenover, S.J., Henri de Lubac Professor of Historical Theology, Department of Theology, Marquette University
128) Min-Ah Cho, Assistant Professor of Theology, St. Catherine University
129) Mary Jo Iozzio, Professor of Moral Theology, Boston College
130) Michael G. Lawler, Amelia and Emil Graff Professor Emeritus of Catholic Theology, Creighton University
131) Juliet Mousseau, RSCJ, Assistant Professor of Church History, Aquinas Institute of Theology, St. Louis
132) Sandra Sullivan-Dunbar, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Loyola University Chicago
133) Kathleen Dorsey Bellow, D.Min., Convener, Black Catholic Theological Symposium
134) Gerald J. Beyer, Associate Professor of Theology, Villanova University
To be added to this list, email Tobias Winright at twinrigh@slu.edu with your name, position, and institutional affiliation (for identification purposes only).