Says Who??

Verstehen, through shared perspectives


1 Comment

THE SHAME OF A NATION: PERSECUTION OF PAIN PATIENTS AND THEIR PHYSICIANS

Lawmakers now claim that drug abuse and overdoses are caused by those who suffer pain and seek medical assistance to alleviate their pain enough for them to cope; to be able to participate in life! How patently absurd. [i]

Before I go on, know that NOTHING in my writing is geared toward promoting the free use of drugs. I firmly believe that second only to the persecution of innocent pain patients and physicians, the great shame of our nation is recreational drug abuse in all its forms, by whoever indulges in it. I have watched too many beautiful and bright college students and other young people destroy their lives in this way. Not just with pills, but also with alcohol, glue sniffing, paint inhaling, and smoking marijuana.

But I have to ask: Why have the law makers and enforcers turned against people who need medication for pain? The problem is not people who rightfully believe medication is intended to cure or alleviate medical conditions. The problem is people who either co-opt others to drug use, or who choose to use drugs themselves.

People choose to be responsible, or not. The medication is not to blame.

But now we are persecuting innocents, with a somewhat hysterical belief that they are somehow the cause. [ii] I submit a brief and incomplete list of resources below showing how the lives of good people are being destroyed by this 21st century witch hunt: Dr. Baldi, Dr. Salerian, Dr. Ibsen, and others[iii]. Also, articles referring to a host of pain patients who, failing to receive the pain care that is their right, submit to the fear of a life of unbearable pain and commit suicide. Or, they go to the streets for drugs. Who can blame the latter?

Their pain has already been criminalized by their own government.

This misdirected war has had unexpected consequences that are well documented. The efforts to restrict physicians and pharmacists[iv] from providing pain medications to patients has immediately resulted in an increase in heroin use, with a rise in overdoses and deaths. The response from law enforcement? “These are UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES[v]. “ It seems that in law enforcement it is OK to produce unintended consequences that stem directly from uninformed and under-researched legal action, killing innocent people and increasing the presence of street drugs.

When will we be smart enough to open an honest discussion between lawmakers, enforcers, and professionals who actually care about their patients?

When will pharmaceutical companies get concerned enough to research and market pain relievers that are potent enough to control pain, without dangerous side effects?

When will we all shake off our apathetic yet determined slide into the shame of our national mediocrity and the injustice and corruption in our system that accompanies it?

A South African woman once remarked to me that human beings are the most intelligent animals created by God; we are smart enough to create the means by which we can destroy the world – and stupid enough to use them.

           

[i]   Lynn Webster, MD: Lawmakers blame people who want pain controlled as the cause of RX abuse. http://www.tricities.com/workittricities/learn/article_3f71bb90-bad0-11e4-b4c7-9bf785dd481e.html?mode=story …

[ii] Lynn Webster http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-pain-drugs-021915-20150218-story.html  Terminal cancer patients are treated as drug addicts   “At each appointment I get scared my doctor will no longer prescribe” http://t.co/yYvcGWI4Uc War on Drugs victimizes pain pts http://updates.pain-topics.org/2012/06/how-war-on-rx-drugs-victimizes-pain.html   :  New restrictions hit veterans hard  http://t.co/r23KAbUIIm

[iii] These are but a few references: Dr. Mark Ibsen   http://t.co/BrZUXfUV3d or http://t.co/6midSDOLOQ ; Dr Salerian: Dennis Lee, the voice, PhiliP KEENE, New York Times Washington Post war on doctors http://fb.me/3zYOQM18d Trial Verdict: Dr. Baldi Not Guilty on All Charges http://whotv.com/2014/05/01/baldi-trial-not-guilty-on-all-charges/    Dr. Gary Shearer: Suspended Northern Kentucky pain doctor dies of ‘suspected suicide’       http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/boone-county/florence/dr-gary-shearer-suspended-northern-kentucky-pain-doctor-dies-of-suspected-suicide  The damage done by the war on opioids: the pendulum has swung too far http://www.dovepress.com/articles.php?article_id=16781 …   Local dr indicted   http://t.co/kYxwB0aGmH

[iv] http://t.co/jtJHRGkN1o   DEA responds after patients denied prescriptions

[v]

Experts: Officials missed signs of prescription drug crackdown’s effect on heroin use (Posted 2014-03-07 02:40:30)
Success in shuttering “pill mills” led to rising heroin use, and officials say the government missed warning signs.
The Washington Post – Washington, D.C.
Subjects: Heroin; Prescription drugs
Author: Markon, Jerry; Crites, Alice
Date: Mar 7, 2014
Start Page: n/a
Section: NATIONAL-POLITICS
The center, which closed in 2012, was separate from the unit employing prosecutors and agents who fight drug use. […]these officials defended their fight against prescription drug abuse, saying those efforts prevented numerous overdose deaths.


Leave a comment

BLESSED ARE THE RICH????? NOT REALLY.

1587_landing_of_the_pilgrims_at_plymouth_-_color_versionThe mythology got mixed up with theology and became canonized byScene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States our founding fathers somewhere between the 16th and 18th centuries. That didn’t make it Biblical, or even an unsacred truth, but somehow because of the nature of our patriotism and need to believe that those who “started” us were wonderful, upstanding people who got it all right, there are people today who still believe the lie. Mostly they are wealthy people. The same ones who believe that the beatitude “Blessed are the poor” ends right there. Look it up—there’s more. Because the “more” is also somewhat opaque for our understanding, I will leave that to those trained in exegesis. However, there is little doubt as to the nature of scriptural direction about wealth—in particular, excessive wealth.

For example, in the New Testament we read about the Rich Fool, who refused to help the beggar at his feet but instead tore down his barns to build bigger barns so that he could hoard more wealth. Wealth was not just money, then or now. It included material possessions like land, cattle, crops, and even family. His reward for such activity was to burn in Hell, pleading for a drop of water from the hands of the beggar he never helped, who was in heaven. (He was denied, by the way.) Sure, this is a just a parable; it is a story with a moral point– “Moral” being the key word.

Another story, this one repeated by eye witnesses, is about the rich young ruler who came to Jesus, claiming to have kept all the religious laws from his youth. He inquired “What must I do to be saved?” and Jesus replied “Give all that you have to the poor, and follow me.” The young man could have lived in America today, because he turned away sadly and left the followers of Jesus.

Maybe that is why scripture also tells us that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Old and New Testaments alike repeatedly tell us to take care of the poor, the widows, and the orphans, the sick and disabled. The commands are unequivocal: Don’t hoard wealth. Don’t succumb to greed.   Take care of those who are in need. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. What’s more, most religions have similar values and ethical concerns about matters of wealth, poverty, and human relationships.

For example, in many cultures one who would be holy must give up all material things as well as family and other relationships, wandering alone and without visible support in order to meet the requirements of holiness. In the Christian traditions, the closer one is to God, the more likely it is that one would join a holy order and renounce wealth and personal possessions. We have a long history of people defined as saints because they dedicated their lives to caring for others, rather than for themselves. Nowhere in anything I have ever read or experienced has anyone achieved sainthood by loving and caring only for themselves.

st francis

 So how did the Puritans—and our founding fathers—get it so wrong? What made them believe that being rich and powerful was a sign that they were truly better than others? Well first of all, they came from a country steeped in the mystique of the aristocracy. Even though they came here to found a new nation that would denounce the way of life they left behind (yes, our forefathers were rebels and immigrants!) there were some ideas deeply rooted in their zeitgeist, to which they still clung.

Reinforcing the belief that wealth and power signified a better race of human beings was the Calvinistic belief in predestination. Actually, the concept of predestination was not the problem. The problem entered AFTER these people were taught to believe that there was a heaven and a hell, and that God knew and had always known who was destined for each place–and the outcome could not be changed. The problem came to life because these folks needed to believe that they were among the chosen. After all that they had sacrificed, and all the difficulties they encountered in the new world, they needed to believe that there would be some post-death reward to make it worthwhile.

So, the Puritans were smart and lived well. They worked hard, saved for the future, and circulated their money in the community.   They prospered accordingly (see Max Weber’s Puritan Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism for a classic sociological analysis of this phenomenon). And when they prospered they chose to believe, lacking evidence to the contrary, that they were among the Chosen. They prospered, therefore they believed that they were special, and that God was showing them that they were predestined for eternal life in His heaven.

This need to connect prosperity with God’s blessing returns again and again in our history. A few years ago the “prosperity gospel” gained in popularity with the promise that God would prosper those who followed Him according to the tenets of that particular line of interpretation. Followers of this belief system may still exist, but they are much quieter now. Louder are the voices of those who were disappointed by the lack of evidence that the purpose of Christian living is to gain wealth.

I believe that right now we are experiencing a far more malignant resurgence of the myth that the wealthy are superior beings, blessed by God (in those cases where they claim a belief in any God but money). Their belief not only justifies to them the dehumanization of the vast majority of the world who are not wealthy, but also the hoarding of wealth. Many of the latter—exemplified by the pre-Christmas Scrooge of Dickens fame—care for nothing more than wealth and power. scroogeLike Scrooge, they are quite literally insane with this addiction, justified by an ancient myth that has been repeatedly denounced by philosophers, poets, theologians and followers of holy writ from every religion. In their insanity, these believe they are doing the “right thing” to destroy all that has been good about our nation.

As it happens, I have met very few people of wealth and power who also were people of integrity. Some who began public service with honorable intentions to change the system from the inside soon succumbed to the seductive nature of wealth and power. But not all of them. There are a few truly fine people who hold positions of power, and who manage despite everything to remember the nature of wholesomeness, trust, and accountability.

Accountability is vitally important. I must be accountable to others if I am to be an ethical person. Moreover, alone I cannot effect  positive societal change. I can speak out, and I can join others who recognize our need to be free of the idea that our nation should be returned to a time when people believed that a few wealthy persons were of a superior race. But, unlike those of the present, the Puritans of our past usually knew that if you would prosper, you had to build up the people around you as well. The necessary recirculation of wealth and resources made communities stronger. They were accountable. There was no such lie as “trickle-down” economics.

The past is done. Today the idea of strength in numbers can still be applied: Together, we can reclaim the excellence in education, health, and industry that once made us strong. It is a new day, a new time, and the ways and means of doing this have changed. But the values that built our nation have not. Those values are timeless.people-holding-hands-th

How many times are we going to have to renounce the mythology that the rich are superior beings, blessed by God and destined for a heaven populated only by their “own kind?” Probably again, and again, and in ever more determined and righteous ways. Of course, those who actually believe that ethical rules or the holy writings of many religions are just nonsense will laugh at all this, and return to the pleasures that help to salve the perceived injury they suffer from constantly being challenged by the resilient presence of those they would choose to ignore, to dehumanize and disenfranchise. But we who do not buy into any belief in “superiority” simply by virtue of wealth are not going away. The scriptures attest to that, as well.   And we are many.

 

People are hungry for God.

People are hungry for love. Are you aware of that?

Do you know that? Do you see that?

Do you have eyes to see?

Quite often we look but we don’t see.

We are all passing through this world.

We need to open our eyes and see.

 

Mother Teresa


Leave a comment

CONFESSIONS OF A BIGOT, UPDATED

July 21, 2016

Two years ago I posted the article below. At the time, I was just beginning treatment for the chronic pain and other illnesses that had required my retirement the year before. But I was also sick from, and sick of, my ongoing anger at how inhumanely we so-called humans treat one another, and just beginning to fully realize that I was in peril of joining the ranks of the haters. I hated intolerance, poverty, unjust legal systems—you name it. I hated those who were intolerant.

I would be reminded by those wanting to help me, of all the people who gave money and time to charities, and how we as a nation spent so much money on welfare, Medicaid, and help for people in other countries. Knowing that I was both activist and teacher, people would say they were agreeing with me by quoting the old saying: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. To which black South Africans replied in the years prior to 1994: Yes, but what if the pond is closed to him?

When I returned home from South Africa at the end of 1995, I was devastated to find that the country of my birth was not the one to which I had returned. It seemed that I had somehow found myself back in apartheid South Africa. I have listed the reasons in another post at about the same time as this one:  https://maryleejames.com/2014/08/01/the-election-is-hanging-in-the-balance/ .  Now I must stress that we are steadily closing the pond for more and more members of our nation’s citizens. Worse, large numbers of our countrymen simply do not care. Life is cheap in America today, just as it was in South Africa in the days of apartheid.

In a post pondering the first year of my new life written one year ago, I have also elaborated on my struggles with anger and the increasing movement of this country toward the actual conditions of apartheid, but now in new clothing. https://maryleejames.com/2015/06/20/ponderings-on-the-first-year-of-my-second-chance-at-life/.

Now it has been two years, and I am not sure just how successful I have been at conquering my anger—or my inability to cope with other’s intolerance. But I do still believe all that I have said in the post below, and the others mentioned. I know I am not the only person in America struggling with this anger. About half of us, however, are on the opposite side of the ones we believe are creating our anger.

But the truth is that we are all the same. We have different ideas and different beliefs in our heads, but since we hate the mere sight of those who differ in any way, we can’t talk about and either resolve or respect those differences. As a result, our nation is in chaos. Our legislators wonder why this is the case, when they have stubbornly failed to do their jobs, and to show leadership with integrity by putting the needs of our country before their own. I could cite specifics, but it is not necessary. We all know what they are, we just can’t agree on which acts were right and which were detrimental to the nation.

Civic Responsibility. Civil Rights. Civil discourse. All based on the same root word, all meaning being accountable to, and for, other members of our country. They are requirements for a democratic process to succeed. And they all rule out acting on our hatreds and require putting ourselves in the other person’s shoes, even if only for the time it takes to work out a common problem.

Otherwise, we become responsible for wiping out hundreds of years of human progress, and become the savages that Hobbes once claimed we were.

 God, bless America,

by returning to us the love we once had for You,

and for your Image in all human beings.

 

June 20, 2015

bare tree

I am of an age where I sometimes remember things that happened years ago better than I remember what I had for breakfast, or even what I intended to do when I walked into this room.   Today, I am recalling a conversation with a fellow college student, when I exclaimed impatiently that I “just cannot stand intolerant people!” I was, in a word, furious.

As I recall the day in question, the other students and I were discussing a “typically racist” response to a situation in our city. In memory, I clearly see the bemused expression on the face of the co-ed, and the hesitation in her voice, when following my outburst she inquired: “is that not just another form of bigotry?” She was pretty brave to venture such a profound observation, considering both the twenty-plus years of difference in our ages, and the potentially negative reaction that bigots may exhibit when being called out. For the record, she remained unharmed and we remained friends. Nevertheless, it was an enlightening and humbling moment for me.

I do have to admit that did not mean that I was cured of my ability to intensely dislike and resent certain people or groups of people whose behavior results in harm to others. I was just no longer able to demonstrate my dislike free of the knowledge that my own behavior could place me on the playing field alongside my adversaries. I am getting better at saying “I hate your behavior, but I do not hate you,” and really meaning it. But usually that can only happen if I am able to swallow the anger that rises up whenever I see people being hurt or deprived of their rights; of their humanity. Sometimes, still, it does not happen until the sentiment is no longer relevant to the target of my ire, but at least I can resolve the bitterness that otherwise would cripple me.

I have never been able to understand hating others because of skin color, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or religion. That is probably why my first academic choice was anthropology, until circumstances placed me in a trajectory towards a degree in sociology. Today, it occurs to me that as a sociologist by profession and a social activist by nature, I am forever dealing with the ambiguity that exists at the point of intersection where I need to speak out in an attempt to rectify the harmful actions that take place in our society, while at the same time—as one who deeply wishes to acknowledge that we are all made in the image of the God we profess to be our own creator—at the same time honoring that Image in the very ones with whom I am at odds. All too often, the realization that I am less than human in the eyes of those same people makes it even more difficult to deal with my own prejudices.

Worse, I begin to stereotype entire groups of people based on their membership in the same category as the people who are creating my problem….it may be

politicians.

lobbyists.

 media.

insurance companies and by implication, insurance agents, or

CEOs of all corporations, for example.

The list goes on, and long after the situation is ended the prejudice tends to remain. So I must deal with myself before, during and after each campaign to right a wrong if I am to honestly claim the title of Christian as well as living as a social activist. In fact, by now I would venture to say that I must do this if I am to have any integrity as a human being. But in practice, this tends only to add to the ambiguities of the situation.

For example, if I work to expose the wrongdoing of a person or group, what credibility will I have if I fail to express my anger at the results of the wrongdoing? At what point do I cross the line between hating the behavior, and hating the person? In a situation within a group where the contenders know each other and acknowledge some important values in common, it is much easier to respect the humanity of the opposing faction. In the broader context, however, it becomes nearly impossible to see that threatening party—almost always a stranger–as a member of one’s own species, let alone as another who is also made in God’s image.

In such cases, the battle can only escalate until one side or the other is thoroughly defeated. They may be relatively harmlessly defeated by being ousted from power, but failing that, they may be only defeated by death. In the case of our country, if we carried this scenario to its extreme, democracy would have been defeated as well.  Anarchy will have won, for it is not possible to live in harmony without trust in a system and in the people who empower that process, when we have failed to protect the vital essence of the humanity of each and every person who inhabits the system.

The good news is that despite the ongoing need for corrections within our society, we are a people who daily live with their neighbors and friends in a peaceful and productive manner. We are people who love our families, our vocations, our churches and our cities. We are proud Americans, and we still enjoy some of the freedoms of a democracy. Our nation is NOT broken! But even the most tolerant of us is still capable of bigotry, and most of us don’t recognize our own role in it. I know, from long experience, that I am most susceptible to this kind of bigotry when I am suffering from the most justifiable (in my eyes, at least), most righteous, anger.

I will never be free of the need to take a deep breath, and with deliberation and truthfulness remind myself that He who made me also created my enemy. He created my enemy, who in some instances may also be praying to that same God for victory in this particular situation.

I sometimes imagine that God could be wondering when His creatures will stop hating each other in His name, and honor that Name by working out our problems with each other instead of asking Him to take sides.

Admittedly, that is a utopian wish. Such ongoing peace is rarely achieved in families, much less in nations.  I am enough of an historian to know that ours is not a story of prolonged periods of living in peace with one another as a nation, yet we share the common value of our unity and in the past have achieved significant results by putting aside our differences in order to protect our common values.

We know how to do this. Our differences are not insurmountable as long as we stop reinforcing the walls that separate us to the point that we can no longer see what we have in common. Perhaps also, as I have constantly to do, we will have to tame the bigot within ourselves before we can work together again as fellow humans.

“One nation……” Like all relationships, it takes work and commitment.  Right now, I have that commitment still.

But I am very angry.

butterfly - Maya Angelou


Leave a comment

THE HERETICAL IMPERATIVE (with apologies to Peter Berger)

Two internationally recognized authors and educators wrote in the latter part of the 20th century in response to the problems of pluralism in our times. They each wrote of different places and situations, but the timelessness of their combined message struck me in a powerful way while writing my dissertation from the research done in South Africa in 1989. For the past few weeks, my mind has been drawn back again and again to these observations, and I both quote and paraphrase here from Chapter 5 of my research.[i]

As I write….I again experience the agonizing frustration arising from attempts to reconcile the difference between what is stated as truth, and what truths are implied by behavior in this country. The problem becomes even more difficult when one begins to unravel the various ideologies and theologies upon which social interactions are based, and the idiosyncratic interpretation of these beliefs by the various actors within the groups.

In other words, one has only taken the first step toward understanding by simply defining the contending worldviews and labeling groups accordingly. There are cross-cutting cleavages which separate political groups, religious groups, and ethnic groups; accordingly, there is at least as great a variety of perspectives within groups as that which exists between them. Yet some attempt must be made to organize one’s understanding of normative behavior, otherwise analysis of any given activity would be entirely incoherent.

Paolo Freire provides one useful typology, which presupposes the ability to choose how one will react to any given situation. He explains that people “exteriorize their view of the world” either fatalistically (which he also describes as reactionary), dynamically, or statically.[ii] The dynamic and static responses are largely self-explanatory; obviously, the dynamic response is the preferred of the three.

The dynamic response utilizes a dialogical process, which Freire describes as an affirming process of becoming.

If it is in speaking their word that [people], by naming the world, transform it, dialogue imposes itself as the way by which [people] achieve significance as [humans]. Dialogue is thus an existential necessity…this dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one person’s ‘depositing’ ideas in another, nor can it become a single exchange of ideas to be ‘consumed’ by the discussants. Nor yet is it a hostile, polemical argument between men who are committed neither to the naming of the world, nor to the search for truth, but rather to the imposition of their own truth…It is an act of creation…Dialogue cannot exist, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for [mankind].

…At the point of encounter there are neither utter ignoramuses nor perfect sages; there are only [people] who are attempting, together, to learn more than they now know.[iii]

The reactionary response typifies what Freire terms “sectarianism;” which, “because it is mythicizing and irrational, turns reality into a false (and therefore unchangeable) ‘reality.’[iv] He explains that sectarianism results from fanaticism of either the right or the left; the first imagining a well-behaved present and the latter a predetermined future:

…closing themselves into ‘circles of certainty’ from which they cannot escape, [they] make their own truth. It is not the truth of men who struggle to build the future, running the risks involved in this very construction. Nor is it the truth of men who fight side by side and learn together how to build this future—which is not something given to be received by men, but is rather something to be created by them. Both types of sectarian, treating history in an equally proprietary fashion, end up without the people—which is another way of being against them.[v]  (emphasis mine)

Sociologist Peter Berger, writing from the perspective of the sociology of religion, produced a similar typology of options which apply to affirmation of religious belief in a modern, secular, and pluralistic society.

 In the pluralistic situation…the authority of all religious traditions tends to be undermined. In this situation there are three major options, or ‘possibilities,’ for those who would maintain the tradition: They can reaffirm the authority of the tradition in defiance of the challenges to it; they can try to secularize the tradition; they can try to uncover and retrieve the experiences embodied in the tradition…I call these three options, respectively, those of deduction, reduction, and induction.[vi]

“Modern consciousness entails a movement from fate to choice, Berger explains; further, “modernity creates a new situation in which picking and choosing becomes an imperative.”[vii] But the multiplicity of choices, and the variety of plausibility structures differing from community to community and institution to institution turns this freedom of choice into an intensely anxiety-ridden situation. The deductive response is to relieve that anxiety by recreating the certainty of authoritative tradition; essentially a return to the past. On the other hand, the reductive response is essentially a change of authorities. “The authority of modern thought or consciousness is substituted for the authority of the tradition…In other words, modern consciousness and its alleged categories become the only criteria of validity for religious reflection.”[viii]

The inductive (heretical) option bases religious affirmation on a deliberately empirical weighing and assessing the bodies of evidence based on experience and tradition. Admittedly, the reductive response typically makes this same endeavor; however, in that instance a line is crossed whereby a new authority is created and takes the place of the authority upon which the religious tradition has been founded. The result, borrowing Freire’s terminology, is sectarianism.

These typologies are similarly based upon their authors’ understanding of the three options available to any individual or community when faced with the challenge of social change, or modernity. It is interesting to note that Freire’s typology, as he interprets it, is essentially action oriented, or related to the “outward journey” whereby we seek community. By comparison, Berger’s typology is inner-directed in that the emphasis is on introspection and evaluation, particularly in the religious sphere, which must occur before action is taken.  This, as Berger explains, is  the essence of the “heretical imperative” that is before us.

Unfortunately, in either typology or any combination thereof, the reactionary/reductive or the static/deductive are the choices most often made; in either case, the result is the closing of a worldview. This closed worldview must be maintained at any cost, in the face of a continuous onslaught of conflicting realities which will challenge it. One could even say that in each of these two options, there has occurred an ‘opting out,’ the choice being against entering the situation as a participant. At national levels, these worldviews are recognized as totalitarian (of right or left); as rigidly authoritarian; as dictatorships. At the community or individual level, those who “opt out” are recognized for their bigotry and closed-mindedness; such people are rarely, if ever, capable of the “I-Thou” relationship which is a prerequisite for the dynamic/inductive option.

If we are to bring ourselves out of the excesses and wrongs of sectarianism and work together again for the good of our country, we must engage in the Heretical Imperative of real human-to-human dialogue, deliberately utilizing the empirical weighing and assessing the bodies of evidence based on experience and tradition; bringing about a loving act of creation that moves us forward into the future in which we stand and work together, for the sake of our children.

[i] James, Marylee M. Good News for the Poor? The Church and Community Development in South Africa. In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Boston University 1990.

[ii] Freire, Paulo Pedagogy of the Oppressed trans. M.B. Ramos. New York continuum, 1989. Pg. 97.

[iii] Ibid, pp. 76-79.

[iv] Ibid, pg.22

[v] Ibid, pg. 23

[vi] Berger, Peter L. The Heretical Imperative: Contemporary Possibilities of Religious Affirmation. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1980 (1979). Pg. xi.

[vii] Ibid, pg.10 & 25

[viii] Ibid, pg. 57