Medical professionals and baptizing dying infants

[chosen_people]

There is no doubt Polish antisemitism existed, particularly between the years of 1918 and 1946, in which some of the Catholic clergy, including at least one notable bishop and local priests, were implicated and even led the charge. Jewish children were not allowed to attend school with other Polish children, Jewish businesses were boycotted, violent pogroms took place, and Jews were not welcomed back to their homeland after the War. Hundreds of Jews were murdered in cold blood by Poles. The Jedwabne and Kielce massacres are blights in Polish history. The Polish people were made to fear the Jews as Marxist Communists, and the Soviet Union became more of a threat to them than Germany. It is still amazing to me that some of the Polish people adopted tactics similar to those of the Nazis, since the latter despised the Poles almost as much as they did the Jews. Evidently, the Jews–as so often in their history–became the scapegoats.

HOWEVER, there is another, parallel Polish history, which involves many rural Polish families who shielded Jews from the Nazis, sometimes at the cost of their own lives, as well as a more pro-Jewish attitude in the urban centers of Poland at the time. This history too has been documented. Moreover, the Church’s shameful lack of response to the Polish massacres has a flip side, revealed in several important books on the topic of the Vatican’s protection of hundreds of Jews from their Nazi pursuers. There is much controversy surrounding Pope Pius, but most scholars find him to be more of a benefactor toward the Jews who were fleeing Nazi persecution, than a Nazi collaborator. We must look at both sides of Polish history.

Insofar as the baptism issue is concerned, I made my feelings clear about this in prior posts. I would be upset if my child were baptized, for the same reasons as you. But to compare, directly or indirectly, a person who baptizes a Jewish child–with good but misguided intentions, in my view-- to those who murdered Jewish children, is wrong. We should NEVER forget the injustices of the past, but we MUST move forward as well, if there is to be any hope of progress in this world for all of us. Otherwise, we will always label ourselves as victims and other people as persecutors.

I’m afraid you may have missed the gist of all those posters who so vehemently feel that it is permissible and even moral to carry out an act unwished for, repugnant to our monotheistic beliefs and so connected with Catholic persecution of the Jews.

You’re a Jew, they don’t care what you think, you have no right as a Jew to your beliefs or to make these decisions. These decisions are the their sole prerogative because you, as a Jew, are either too stupid or too stubborn to understands what every right minded person knows.

If the baby is baptized and recovers they no doubt would also argue, as in Mortara, that the child should be removed from their Jewish home to grow up a Christian now that he or she has been baptized. In this regard look at the 1946 order of Pope Pius XII and the non reunifiction of Jewish children rescued by the Church to their Jewish families, thus cutting them off forever from the Jewish people and Judaism.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’m afraid you may have missed the gist of all those posters who so vehemently feel that it is permissible and even moral to carry out an act unwished for, repugnant to our monotheistic beliefs and so connected with Catholic persecution of the Jews.

You’re a Jew, they don’t care what you think, you have no right as a Jew to your beliefs or to make these decisions. These decisions are the their sole prerogative because you, as a Jew, are either too stupid or too stubborn to understands what every right minded person knows.

If the baby is baptized and recovers they no doubt would also argue, as in Mortara, that the child should be removed from their Jewish home to grow up a Christian now that he or she has been baptized. In this regard look at the 1946 order of Pope Pius XII and the non reunifiction of Jewish children rescued by the Church to their Jewish families, thus cutting them off forever from the Jewish people and Judaism.

The Mortara incident happened in 1858, and there was also the Duhlberg affair in the 1990’s in Genoa. But I can hardly imagine a child’s being removed from their Jewish home in the US or most of Europe today. Of course, it is, even now, hard to imagine the Holocaust’s taking place either, so I see your point and agree that Jews must always be vigilant regarding what’s happening in their society and the world that may curtail their religious and human rights. The same is true of Catholics and other Christians in the modern age. Nonetheless, my main point is we should resist viewing almost everything, including acts of ignorance and good intentions, as indicative of antisemitism by linking them to the past. This is not our only or principal legacy and we must strive to surpass our self-perception as eternal victims.

 

[Della]

The Mortara incident happened in 1858, and there was also the Duhlberg affair in the 1990’s in Genoa. But I can hardly imagine a child’s being removed from their Jewish home in the US or most of Europe today. Of course, it is, even now, hard to imagine the Holocaust’s taking place either, so I see your point and agree that Jews must always be vigilant regarding what’s happening in their society and the world that may curtail their religious and human rights. The same is true of Catholics and other Christians in the modern age. Nonetheless, my main point is we should resist viewing almost everything, including acts of ignorance and good intentions, as indicative of antisemitism by linking them to the past. This is not our only or principal legacy and we must strive to surpass our self-perception as eternal victims.

I agree. No child should have anything done to him against his parents wishes unless the parents have abrogated their rights through abuse or heinous crime against the child/children under their care.

For example, there was a famous case recently of an atheist father who did not have custodial rights who was trying to force his daughter into denying her Christian faith. The courts ruled most decidedly against him, but such cases are rare.

And I so totally agree about any group of people hanging onto the victim status when it does no real good but in fact is derimental to their welfare. In the USA we all are equals, at least for the present. It’s up to all of us to ensure it stays that way. Which is another good reason no child should have religious ceremonies performed for him without his parents’ permission.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

I agree. No child should have anything done to him against his parents wishes unless the parents have abrogated their rights through abuse or heinous crime against the child/children under their care.

Reading through this thread I’m reminded of what happened in the aftermath of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. Thailand, where I was at the time, had to deal with thousands of deceased westerners, mostly tourists, mainly - but not exclusively - Christians. Those whose bodies were recovered were given Theravada Buddhist funerals and cremations before their remains were released to their families.

Some families of the victims made formal complaints through their embassies about the fact that their relatives were not afforded Christian funeral services. They wrote passionate letters to the effect that aid workers had no right allowing Buddhist monks to confer non-Christian blessings and prayers for the repose of their loved ones.

Posters who think baptizing dying infants of non-Christian parents is always Okay need to reverse the tables and ask themselves how they’d react if a stranger decided allow a non-Christian/non-Catholic service for their dead/dying relative when no one from the family gave their assent.

Luna

 

[Allegra]

Let’s flip the coin, what if your son had just died. Later you find out that before he died, a Jewish doctor decided to circumcise him and allow him to die a Jew. How would you feel about that? The Jewish doctor tells you he did what he beleived best for your son, would you accept that, and pat him on the back? Of course you wouldn’t! Youd’ be outraged! And justified in being so!

.

If I would be outraged in this situation, it would not be because the doctor had made my son a Jew. First of all, the mere fact that someone is circumsised does not make them Jewish. Jewish people don’t even believe that, but lets say for a moment they did. The point is I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that the doctor’s actions have any effect on the state of my child’s soul whatsoever. My only concern might be that he put my child through undue physical pain, which is another issue that obviously doesn’t apply to Baptism. That’s what I want to know. If a person believes a baptism isn’t real, then why would they even care? The only reason for outrage that I can see in the case of Baptism is if a person believes the Baptism actually does the baby spiritual harm.

 

[Allegra]

Reading through this thread I’m reminded of what happened in the aftermath of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. Thailand, where I was at the time, had to deal with thousands of deceased westerners, mostly tourists, mainly - but not exclusively - Christians. Those whose bodies were recovered were given Theravada Buddhist funerals and cremations before their remains were released to their families.

Some families of the victims made formal complaints through their embassies about the fact that their relatives were not afforded Christian funeral services. They wrote passionate letters to the effect that aid workers had no right allowing Buddhist monks to confer non-Christian blessings and prayers for the repose of their loved ones.

Posters who think baptizing dying infants of non-Christian parents is always Okay need to reverse the tables and ask themselves how they’d react if a stranger decided allow a non-Christian/non-Catholic service for their dead/dying relative when no one from the family gave their assent.

Luna

As long as they didn’t send me a Theravada Buddhist bill for the cost of these funerals, I honestly wouldn’t care. I would bring my loved one’s ashes home and arrange for a proper funeral Mass. I should be thankful that these aid workers attempted to treat my loved one’s remains with respect and dignity in the midst of chaos and tragedy.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I would sue not only the person that did the baptism but the hospital. Why would I care that someone did that to my dying child? Because it is a parents right and responsibility to instruct a child in the matters of religion from the time that child is born until they leave the house. The person who conducted that baptism would have decided to take over the role of parenting as I am going through the most difficult thing a parent can. They would have robbed me of the only few, precious moments I would have had in deciding what is best for my baby, and that is wrong. I and my soon to be husband are very morally opposed to many things about Catholicism, infant baptism included. We would deserve to decide for our baby.

 

[Castello]

Reading through this thread I’m reminded of what happened in the aftermath of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. Thailand, where I was at the time, had to deal with thousands of deceased westerners, mostly tourists, mainly - but not exclusively - Christians. Those whose bodies were recovered were given Theravada Buddhist funerals and cremations before their remains were released to their families.

Some families of the victims made formal complaints through their embassies about the fact that their relatives were not afforded Christian funeral services. They wrote passionate letters to the effect that aid workers had no right allowing Buddhist monks to confer non-Christian blessings and prayers for the repose of their loved ones.

Posters who think baptizing dying infants of non-Christian parents is always Okay need to reverse the tables and ask themselves how they’d react if a stranger decided allow a non-Christian/non-Catholic service for their dead/dying relative when no one from the family gave their assent.

Luna

If my family member died in a non-christian land and they were given a non-christian funeral by some well meaning strangers, I would thank them for their kindness. I would know that it was not done out of maIace and would never think of being offended.

I would then have a funeral Mass for my loved one.

 

[Allegra]

I would sue not only the person that did the baptism but the hospital. Why would I care that someone did that to my dying child? Because it is a parents right and responsibility to instruct a child in the matters of religion from the time that child is born until they leave the house. The person who conducted that baptism would have decided to take over the role of parenting as I am going through the most difficult thing a parent can. They would have robbed me of the only few, precious moments I would have had in deciding what is best for my baby, and that is wrong. I and my soon to be husband are very morally opposed to many things about Catholicism, infant baptism included. We would deserve to decide for our baby.

A Baptism that occurs within moments of birth isn’t very instructive. In at least two of the OP’s scenarios, you are incapacitated to make any sort of decision whatsoever. If the child suddenly underwent a miracle and recovered and you took him home, you would raise him as you saw fit and you would instruct him as you saw fit. What harm does the baptism do? I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I really don’t see outrage here. I could see perhaps, being mildly insulted that the nurse doesn’t think much of my religious belief (or lack thereof) but that would hardly rock my world, particularly if I’d just lost a baby. There’s another thread that’s discussing the horrors of the Mormans baptising people postumously. I don’t get that either. I’m not trying to be flippant, but who cares? It’s not real. It has no effect on anything. Presumably, you feel the same way about Christian baptism. I just don’t get it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

A Baptism that occurs within moments of birth isn’t very instructive. In at least two of the OP’s scenarios, you are incapacitated to make any sort of decision whatsoever. If the child suddenly underwent a miracle and recovered and you took him home, you would raise him as you saw fit and you would instruct him as you saw fit. What harm does the baptism do? I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I really don’t see outrage here. I could see perhaps, being mildly insulted that the nurse doesn’t think much of my religious belief (or lack thereof) but that would hardly rock my world, particularly if I’d just lost a baby. There’s another thread that’s discussing the horrors of the Mormans baptising people postumously. I don’t get that either. I’m not trying to be flippant, but who cares? It’s not real. It has no effect on anything. Presumably, you feel the same way about Christian baptism. I just don’t get it.

If I were incapacitated my husband or mother should be asked. No one should take that upon themselves. Instructive or not that is a personal and private decision that is a parent’s right to make, not a strangers just because they happen to believe in it.

I care a great deal about my baby being baptized. Besides the intrusion in to my family if the child lives it opens the door to many problems. Like for example the fact that no matter what he believes as an adult Catholics will always consider him Catholic. My fiance does not believe in god, but because of a baptism that he had no say in when he was a baby many of his family members won’t be showing up to our wedding, because he’s held to the marriage laws of the church. He is very hurt by that situation. A baptism is the last thing he would want for our child.

Besides, every hospital asks your religious preference when you are admitted anyway. They would know I’m an atheist.

And above all, its a horrible thing to go against the wishes of the parents like that. Ignoring their beliefs like that when it comes to their dying child is cruel.

Oh, and if there is a god and he would keep my baby out of heaven because I didn’t want him baptized during his short life then that god is not the type of being I would want my child to spend eternity with anyway.

 

[SonCatcher]

As long as they didn’t send me a Theravada Buddhist bill for the cost of these funerals, I honestly wouldn’t care. I would bring my loved one’s ashes home and arrange for a proper funeral Mass. I should be thankful that these aid workers attempted to treat my loved one’s remains with respect and dignity in the midst of chaos and tragedy.

If my family member died in a non-christian land and they were given a non-christian funeral by some well meaning strangers, I would thank them for their kindness. I would know that it was not done out of maIace and would never think of being offended.

I would then have a funeral Mass for my loved one.

Indeed. They would have conducted a corporal work of mercy, which is a grace in itself.

 

[SonCatcher]

If I were incapacitated my husband or mother should be asked. No one should take that upon themselves. Instructive or not that is a personal and private decision that is a parent’s right to make, not a strangers just because they happen to believe in it.

Unfortunately, the hypotheticals presented offer no chance to ask anyone due to absence or incapacity. The person has to make an assumption. Many Christians (all those that celebrate infant baptism and probably even some who don’t normally) would be relieved to learn their dying child had been baptized.

Ideally, there would be someone available to ask, but without that possibility demographics probably plays more into the decision.

I care a great deal about my baby being baptized. Besides the intrusion in to my family if the child lives it opens the door to many problems. Like for example the fact that no matter what he believes as an adult Catholics will always consider him Catholic. My fiance does not believe in god, but because of a baptism that he had no say in when he was a baby many of his family members won’t be showing up to our wedding, because he’s held to the marriage laws of the church. He is very hurt by that situation. A baptism is the last thing he would want for our child.

Sorry you have such insensitive clods for future in-laws. The staff apologists occasionally tackle this problem and most situations allow the family to attend (if not being groomsmen, bridesmaids, etc).

Besides, every hospital asks your religious preference when you are admitted anyway. They would know I’m an atheist.

Assuming there is time to even consult the chart.

And above all, its a horrible thing to go against the wishes of the parents like that. Ignoring their beliefs like that when it comes to their dying child is cruel.

Oh, and if there is a god and he would keep my baby out of heaven because I didn’t want him baptized during his short life then that god is not the type of being I would want my child to spend eternity with anyway.

We don’t believe God would deny an unbaptized child access to Heaven merely on account of being unbaptized. We just simply don’t know what becomes of them. All things are possible for God since He is not bound by the sacraments. Only Christians are required to conform to them - and all unbaptized persons (including newborn children of Christians) are not Christian.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Unfortunately, the hypotheticals presented offer no chance to ask anyone due to absence or incapacity. The person has to make an assumption. Many Christians (all those that celebrate infant baptism and probably even some who don’t normally) would be relieved to learn their dying child had been baptized.

Ideally, there would be someone available to ask, but without that possibility demographics probably plays more into the decision.

Sorry you have such insensitive clods for future in-laws. The staff apologists occasionally tackle this problem and most situations allow the family to attend (if not being groomsmen, bridesmaids, etc).

Assuming there is time to even consult the chart.

We don’t believe God would deny an unbaptized child access to Heaven merely on account of being unbaptized. We just simply don’t know what becomes of them. All things are possible for God since He is not bound by the sacraments. Only Christians are required to conform to them - and all unbaptized persons (including newborn children of Christians) are not Christian.

I’m not a monster. If someone didn’t know and there was absolutely no way to check, I would be upset and angry, and I would complain to the hospital, because it is still inappropriate, but not irate/devastated/ready to sue/calling the press. Its more the attitude that other posters were taking that it doesn’t matter what the parents think or believe they are going to do what they feel is best. That’s the attitude that motivated my anger and harsh tone.

Even many Protestants, my family included believes that infant baptism is a moral wrong. I think the best thing for everyone would be for the member of the staff who would want to perform an emergency baptism to gently ask the mother beforehand what she would prefer, should a worst case scenario happen.

 

[Allegra]

I care a great deal about my baby being baptized. Besides the intrusion in to my family if the child lives it opens the door to many problems. Like for example the fact that no matter what he believes as an adult Catholics will always consider him Catholic. My fiance does not believe in god, but because of a baptism that he had no say in when he was a baby many of his family members won’t be showing up to our wedding, because he’s held to the marriage laws of the church. He is very hurt by that situation. A baptism is the last thing he would want for our child.

Besides, every hospital asks your religious preference when you are admitted anyway. They would know I’m an atheist.

And above all, its a horrible thing to go against the wishes of the parents like that. Ignoring their beliefs like that when it comes to their dying child is cruel.

Oh, and if there is a god and he would keep my baby out of heaven because I didn’t want him baptized during his short life then that god is not the type of being I would want my child to spend eternity with anyway.

How would adult Catholics know that that your son was baptised in the first place? In the situations presented, the parents wouldn’t even know.If the child lived, even he wouldn’t know. If years later, he decided to become a Catholic, they would probably give him a normal baptism at that point. I still don’t see what harm it would do. I don’t see how this is “cruel”. Perhaps, “disrespectful”, but not cruel. I find the last thing you wrote to be very interesting though. If there is a God, you wouldn’t want to have anything to do with Him because you don’t like His rules. I might be reading too much into that but it sounds like, contingent on His existance, you would deny Him your child (Who is a gift from Him in the first place) as some sort of punishment. That almost sounds like refusing to acknowledge God out of spite. I find that interesting because I just had a discussion with a non-Catholic coworker about the difference between agnostics and atheists. Her theory is that agnostics don’t have enough faith to follow a religion, but they still wonder about the possibility of a Creator. Meanwhile, according to her, atheists believe that God exists but purposefully and actively deny Him our of anger, defiance, or spite. I had never heard that opinion before and I’m not sure I agree with it universally. However, I must admit that your last statement does seem suspiciously in line with that theory.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

How would adult Catholics know that that your son was baptised in the first place? In the situations presented, the parents wouldn’t even know.If the child lived, even he wouldn’t know. If years later, he decided to become a Catholic, they would probably give him a normal baptism at that point. I still don’t see what harm it would do. I don’t see how this is “cruel”. Perhaps, “disrespectful”, but not cruel. I find the last thing you wrote to be very interesting though. If there is a God, you wouldn’t want to have anything to do with Him because you don’t like His rules. I might be reading too much into that but it sounds like, contingent on His existance, you would deny Him your child (Who is a gift from Him in the first place) as some sort of punishment. That almost sounds like refusing to acknowledge God out of spite. I find that interesting because I just had a discussion with a non-Catholic coworker about the difference between agnostics and atheists. Her theory is that agnostics don’t have enough faith to follow a religion, but they still wonder about the possibility of a Creator. Meanwhile, according to her, atheists believe that God exists but purposefully and actively deny Him our of anger, defiance, or spite. I had never heard that opinion before and I’m not sure I agree with it universally. However, I must admit that your last statement does seem suspiciously in line with that theory.

Your coworker is wrong. Agnostic and atheist refer to two different things, and it is possible to be both. Just like one can be an agnostic theist, a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist. But that’s another long discussion that I would be willing to have via private messaging so as not to derail the thread. Besides, convos like that are more fun to have privately.

I do see it as cruel. Just as I would see it as cruel if an atheist prevented the baptism of a dying baby of Catholic parents. Ignoring someone’s deeply held personal beliefs and morals when they are losing a child is needlessly rubbing salt in their wounds and robbing them of their few moments of being a parent to their child.

And you are reading too much in to this. I’m not denying god out of spite (that would be remarkably stupid-to believe in god but to choose eternal suffering?) But I am saying that any deity who would punish infants for eternity because they weren’t allowed by their parents to be baptized in the few moments they were alive is not an all loving and merciful god, and certainly nothing like the one that I was brought up believing in and worshipping.

 

[Kaninchen]

Nonetheless, my main point is we should resist viewing almost everything, including acts of ignorance and good intentions, as indicative of antisemitism by linking them to the past. This is not our only or principal legacy and we must strive to surpass our self-perception as eternal victims.

Obviously, times have changed but isn’t it sometimes necessary to point out that, while they no longer have any power to be enforced at a political or social level, aspects of the same old arrogance of power remain (even after it’s been pointed out that, while the action is meaningless at one level, it’s deeply offensive - religiously and historically - at another)?

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

How would adult Catholics know that that your son was baptised in the first place? In the situations presented, the parents wouldn’t even know.If the child lived, even he wouldn’t know. If years later, he decided to become a Catholic, they would probably give him a normal baptism at that point. I still don’t see what harm it would do.

A layperson who confers an emergeny baptism is bound to have it recorded with the Church and to give the person or the parents a copy of a Certificate of Emergency Baptism.

From cathdal.org/files/Emergency_Baptism_Records.pdf:

*When a Catholic baptism is conferred in an emergency situation, that is, in a non-parish facility such as a hospital or jail, ceremonies may be supplied at a later date. The baptism itself is to be recorded properly in the territorial parish of the hospital, jail or other facility. If the ceremonies are supplied at a later date (cf. 1973 Rite of Baptism for Children #31.3), a notation should be made in the margin of the baptismal entry of the territorial parish indicating the date and place the ceremonies were supplied.

After the conferral of the emergency baptism, the minister of baptism completes a Certificate of Emergency Baptism and gives it to the one who is baptized or, in the case of an infant, to the parents. The one baptized or the parents of the one baptized can then present this Certificate to the pastor of the parish in which he/she is a member so that the baptism can be noted in the baptismal register of that parish. The baptism itself will be recorded in the territorial parish where the baptism occurred. The Certificate will inform the baptized’s pastor that the baptism occurred and was recorded in the territorial parish where the baptism occurred. In this way, should the one receiving baptism (or the parents) forget where the baptism is recorded, the parish in which he/she was registered or was a member can supply this information.

The minister of baptism will notify Pastoral Services of the baptism, so that Pastoral Services can inform the territorial parish in which the hospital, jail or other facility is located so that the baptism can be so registered.*

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Wow. Thanks for the info Luna. That is worse than I thought. I have the right to determine what organizations, if any, my infant is associated with. What a huge violation that baptism would be.

I have to change my mind, their behinds would be in court even if they weren’t intentionally going against my beliefs and values.

 

[Castello]

A layperson who confers an emergeny baptism is bound to have it recorded with the Church and to give the person or the parents a copy of a Certificate of Emergency Baptism.

From cathdal.org/files/Emergency_Baptism_Records.pdf:

*When a Catholic baptism is conferred in an emergency situation, that is, in a non-parish facility such as a hospital or jail, ceremonies may be supplied at a later date. The baptism itself is to be recorded properly in the territorial parish of the hospital, jail or other facility. If the ceremonies are supplied at a later date (cf. 1973 Rite of Baptism for Children #31.3), a notation should be made in the margin of the baptismal entry of the territorial parish indicating the date and place the ceremonies were supplied.

After the conferral of the emergency baptism, the minister of baptism completes a Certificate of Emergency Baptism and gives it to the one who is baptized or, in the case of an infant, to the parents. The one baptized or the parents of the one baptized can then present this Certificate to the pastor of the parish in which he/she is a member so that the baptism can be noted in the baptismal register of that parish. The baptism itself will be recorded in the territorial parish where the baptism occurred. The Certificate will inform the baptized’s pastor that the baptism occurred and was recorded in the territorial parish where the baptism occurred. In this way, should the one receiving baptism (or the parents) forget where the baptism is recorded, the parish in which he/she was registered or was a member can supply this information.

The minister of baptism will notify Pastoral Services of the baptism, so that Pastoral Services can inform the territorial parish in which the hospital, jail or other facility is located so that the baptism can be so registered.*

The link is broken.

This appears to be one Diocese guidelines, does the original doc ref Canon Law?

 

[meltzerboy]

Obviously, times have changed but isn’t it sometimes necessary to point out that, while they no longer have any power to be enforced at a political or social level, aspects of the same old arrogance of power remain (even after it’s been pointed out that, while the action is meaningless at one level, it’s deeply offensive - religiously and historically - at another)?

It’s a balancing act and a very delicate issue. On the one hand, what we perceive to be social injustices should always be pointed out and, more than that, fought to remedy. On the other hand, some Jews have a tendency to play the “race, or religion, card” too frequently, in my view. This has led to an almost paranoid attitude toward Christians. As I stated, we should never forget the injustices of the past, but we must also learn to trust others and realize we are not always the focus of their attention. I think African Americans have a similar issue, given their history of discrimination and persecution in the United States, as do other groups of people who have a history of being targets of prejudiced attitudes.