The Clapham Chronicle
April 22nd, 2016
Publication II
Presented to you by
The Wilberforce Upper School
1
$1.00
Table of Contents
Howe W. on Extremism ....... Page 3
Katie D. on Religion and Chess ....... Page 5
Charlie D. on Originalism and Justice Scalia ....... Page 6
Rebecca Z. on Untranslatable Words: Russian ....... Image Captions
Clapham Editors
Katie D.
Charlie D.
Rebecca Z.
Richard F., Artist
Howe W.
2
беспредел [bespr’ed’el] |noun|: state of “no
boundaries”; state of complete disorder, chaos, and/or
lawlessness
cis said in his speech in a joint session of Congress: “No
religion is immune from forms of individual delusion
or ideological extremism”. Both of these world leaders
condemned extremism in general, blaming it for terrorism and evil. But is this fair?
What Is Extremism?
By Howe W.
Extremism is a word that is bandied about often
these days. It is a word that is applied indiscriminately to
anyone who commits terrorist-like acts. The word extremism is becoming synonymous with terrorism. But
is this an appropriate use of the word? Are all ideas bad
if taken to the extreme? Are people who take part in
“extreme sports” extremists? What would a “Christian
extremist” look like? As Christians, aren’t we supposed
to follow the example and teachings of Christ to the extreme?
Ideas have consequences. Different ideas lead
to different consequences. We should consider then
whether if different ideas are taken to the utmost, to the
extreme, they might have vastly different consequences. This is a relatively simple concept, but one which is
overlooked by those who assert that extremism is what’s
wrong.
If someone convenes an anti-extremism conference, as Obama did, the implication is that any type of
extremism, of whatever religion, is wrong. Pope Francis
appears to agree, declaring that “No religion is immune
In February of 2015, President Obama convened an anti-extremism summit. There he said that “We
are not at war with Islam, we are at war with those who
have perverted Islam”. Then this September, Pope Fran3
(continued on page 4)
from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism”. Clearly in the minds of both Obama and Francis,
extremism is the problem.
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off
every fingertip of them." ISIS has carried out this decree zealously.
According to dictionary.com, the definition of
extreme is “utmost or exceedingly great in degree.” Extremism, then, is taking a system of belief to the extreme,
or to the utmost. To determine whether something is extremist, we must see if it is consistent with the teachings
and actions of its founder.
ISIS, far from perverting Islam, as President
Obama claimed, is actually adhering closely to the
core teachings of the Koran, and following the example of Mohammed.
Now, certainly not all Muslims follow this ideology. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and totally opposed to ISIS. But are we to define a
religion by what most of its nominal followers believe,
or by its original teachings and the words of its founding prophet and by those who are zealously seeking to
follow those teachings and that example?
In the debate about extremism, Christianity and
Islam are the two religious worldviews that are almost always pitted against each other. Why don’t we then bring
in a third party; say, Buddhism. It is fairly well known that
Buddha’s teachings centered around inner peace and the
attainment of true happiness. Yet there have been recent
instances of violent Buddhists. Notably, there have been
a number of reports of Buddhist monks persecuting
and brutally killing Muslims in Burma. Are these Buddhists extremists? Absolutely not. Their actions, while in
the name of their religion, reflect in no way whatsoever
the actual teachings of Buddha. They are merely violent
Buddhists, not extreme ones.
Ideas have consequences, and different ideas
have different consequences. Extremists of different
beliefs have wildly divergent paths. Instead of referring to the the Planned Parenthood attacker and the
Burmese monks as extremists, why not just call them
bad? Perhaps we should entertain the idea that the
Planned Parenthood attacker or the Burmese monks
were deranged bad actors acting inconsistently with
their professed faith. Likewise, might it be true that
ISIS members are zealously living out the core teachings and example of Muhammed.
Let’s apply this logic then to Christianity and
Islam. Very recently, a man who claimed to be Christian attacked and shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic,
killing several people. Does this man’s act align in any
way, shape, or form with the teachings or example of
Jesus? Not on your life. This man, then, is not an extremist. He’s violent, dangerous, and unjustified, but not
an extremist. I would contend that a true Christian extremist would be a missionary who goes to a dangerous,
unreached place, and gives his life in the ministry of the
Gospel. The apostles were Christian extremists. This
kind of extremism is obeying the commands of Christ
to the utmost. Christian extremists lay down their lives
for others in acts of sacrificial service. “Greater love has
no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
(John 15:13).
The next time you hear the word “extremism,”
ask yourself, “is this the core teaching and example of
that faith or philosophy, taken to an extreme? Or is it
a perversion of the doctrine they espouse?” Certainly
some ideologies, when taken to their extremes, yield
destructive and evil results. Between Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, only one results in violence when
taken to its utmost.
On the other hand, it is hard to take a serious
look at Islam, at the teachings and example of Mohammed and the Koran, and say that the actions of ISIS are
inconsistent with the core teachings of Islam.
The word Islam means “Submission”. For Muslims, the world is divided into two realms: Dar al-Islām,
or the “Abode of Submission”, andt Dār al-Harb, the
“Household of War”. Jihad is both the internal struggle
for submission to Allah, but also the external struggle to
bring the rest of the world into submission. Violence is
reserved for those who refuse.
4
Religion and Chess
relies on pure chance. The real life bishop of Florence,
criticised for playing chess in 1061, defended himself by
saying that “chess is one thing and dice is another,” and
that still stands true to this day. Saudi Arabians already
live under an absolute monarchy, and by banning chess
for outrageous reasons, they are taking another step towards an even more autocratic and totalitarian state.
By Katie D.
Whether played on a board or online, against a person or a computer, the game of chess tests a player’s
ability to think quickly and solve problems. Chess
originated in India around the seventh century, and is
a popular game played by amateurs and professionals around the world to this day. In addition, some
health experts even claim that it has the ability to
improve recovery from stroke and help prevent Alzheimer's disease. Recently, however, this seemingly
harmless game has upset religious fundamentalists
in Saudi Arabia. The Sunni Muslim country’s highest religious authority, the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al-Sheikh, has issued a fatwa, or religious decree, forbidding anyone to play. He calls it “the work
of Satan,” like alcohol or gambling, which wastes
time and money and “causes hatred and enmity between two players.” Although this is not the first time
in history that chess has been banned, many people
have resorted to using Twitter to defend the game,
while others have agreed with Al-Sheikh, saying that
it distracts from daily prayers and remembrance of
God. The Grand Mufti vehemently supported his
statement by referencing a verse in the Koran, which
bans any form of gambling, intoxicants or idolatry.
Just as the Hunger Games series final movie,
Mockingjay, was banned from countries such as
Thailand, Vietnam, and China because it created the
possibility of a real life revolution, religious leaders
in Saudi Arabia see chess as a threat. They follow
an extremely conservative and puritanical branch of
Sunni Islam ideology known as Wahhabism, which
insists on a literal interpretation of the Quran. Anyone or anything against their form of Islam are considered heathens and enemies, and this could even
include a game of chess. They believe that chess can
be addictive, one of those “great, consuming products of human ingenuity.” According to The Economist, the victor’s cry of “checkmate” is associated
with Persian words which mean “the king is dead”
(shah-mata), or in other words, the king is helpless.
Although Al-Sheikh claims that it is a threat to religion, it is also a threat to authority.
If playing chess poses a risk for revolution or
is a distraction from daily prayers, religious fundamentalists could easily invent reasons for why even
things such as eating food is a “distraction”. Chess is
a game that relies on personal skill and intelligence,
and is completely different from gambling, which
5
доводить [dovod’it’] |verb|: to drive someone
across their threshold of annoyance by irritating them
(lit. to bring to the finish)
will replace Scalia, I would like to reflect and examine
the brand of conservatism that the Justice embraced
while on the court.
Justice Antonin Scalia was appointed by Ronald Reagan to SCOTUS in 1979. He was a Catholic of
Italian descent, born just minutes from The Wilberforce School in Trenton, NJ. Throughout his career as
a judge, Scalia made rulings based on an interpretation
of The Constitution called Originalism. For me, this is
the most fundamental and important interpretation of
The Constitution. If there was one issue I had to deem
the most important , it would be the issue of how one
interprets The Constitution. Everything about politics
and government stems from how we interpret our
founding document. Our views on how government
should interact in our lives, the economy, social issues,
all rely on different interpretations. Most importantly
religious freedoms are protected under an Originalist
interpretation. This is why whoever controls the majority in The Supreme Court controls the ideological
backbone of the United States. With the loss of Scalia,
the court is in a 4-4 tie of Originalist and “Living and
Breathing” justices.
Originalism is defined as: a judicial interpretation of The Constitution that aims to follow closely the
original meaning of those who drafted it. Justices such
as Scalia believed that as unelected interpreters of The
Constitution, the best way to perform their duties is
to look at what the founding fathers meant when they
wrote The Constitution in the context of the time period. They then make rulings according to their best
understanding of the original meaning. Living and
Breathing interpreters argue that the founding fathers
could not have possibly accounted for the things of
today and that we must treat the document as a living one and apply current context to the amendments
and founding principles. Originalists argue that it is
impossible for current justices to interpret intentions
of the founding fathers, rather they must do their best
to understand what the amendment or article meant
at the time of passage. In opposition to a “Living and
Breathing” interpreter, Originalists say that to use the
constitution and adapt its meaning to fit the context
of the current period can and will lead to arbitrary and
ambiguous rulings.
I will paraphrase Justice Scalia’s most widely
used example of a highly disputed law. The notion of
a capital punishment or death penalty is something
that, over the past 30 years, has come under scrutiny.
“Living Breathing” Justices will cite the eighth amend-
Originalism and Justice Scalia
by Charlie D.
“God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the
world would view Christians as fools…and He has not
been disappointed. Devout Christians are destined to
be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for
Christ’s sake. We must pray for courage to endure the
scorn of the sophisticated world. If I have brought any
message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your
wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And
have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.” -Justice Antonin Scalia
Conservative adjudication in America lost a warrior
this past month. Justice Antonin Scalia, who died of natural causes, was one of the most influential Justices in
the history of The Supreme Court. His conservative values and devotion to a pure and originalist interpretation
of our nation's founding document were unprecedented
and will be nearly impossible to match. There is layer
upon layer of political repercussions to be discussed,
ranging from “who will the President nominate next?”
to “how will a republican controlled legislative branch
act upon a nomination (if at all) with an upcoming election?” While you can read stories everywhere about who
6
(continued on page 7)
ment saying that there cannot be “cruel nor unusual
punishments”. They say death is the most cruel of all
and that we view it differently in today's context and it
must be abolished. Whether you believe in the death
penalty or not is beside the point. Living and breathing interpreters say The Constitution, as applied today,
would make the death penalty unconstitutional. Scalia
explained throughout his career that when the eighth
amendment was created, it did not mean the death
penalty was cruel or unusual. The eighth amendment
was put in place to stop people from being tarred and
feathered or publicly hung. By no means did the Bill of
Rights deem a death penalty unconstitutional. To say
the death penalty is unconstitutional may appear noble, but in reality is arbitrary and would slowly begin to
undermine the democratic process by leaving interpretations of The Constitution up to whim of the adjudicator. Scalia was a major advocate of the amendment
process the founding fathers set up. Instead of leaving interpretations that were not clearly outlined by the
founding fathers up to nine unelected Justices, there is
an option brilliantly included in The Constitution. We
have an option to amend our Constitution and add to
our Bill of Rights . It was not meant to be an easy process.
If core principles and beliefs could change so quickly, our
country would become transient and leave behind founding
ideals. Yet it is not something that is impossible; we have
amended The Constitution twenty seven times!
These underlying themes of the Supreme Court
stepping in and making overreaching decisions are repeated
in all kinds of controversial court cases. The idea of how
much power the Supreme Court is given and what it should
do with that power comes under scrutiny time and time
again. For Scalia it was clear, there is no place for activist
Justices on the Supreme Court. It is the not the place of an
unelected judge to legislate on the Supreme Court bench
or push forward a political agenda. Scalia once famously
said “the judge who always likes the results he reaches is a
bad judge.” This is the danger of progressive Justices; they
are willing to look past original meaning to get their agenda passed. This blatantly erodes democracy, and while there
may be good intentions, it is detrimental to American principles. Justice Scalia fought hard his entire career to interpret
the meaning of our Constitution. His legacy will not soon
be forgotten.
молодец [molodets] |noun|: a word to describe someone who did good job
(equivalent of “good job” or “great work”)
7
Forgot username or password?
Solutions for Districts
What We Offer
Passcode/Create New User
Free Resources
Who We Are
Teachers
Clapham
Crossword
Clapham
Puzzle
II
username
Help
password
Current Users Login Here
Parents
Students
II
F
W
J
U
Q
T
Q
Q
J
W
I
L
J
W
S
I
V
F
M
Z
F
C
C
W
X
O
J
E
O
Y
J
S
N
O
J
L
N
L
H
L
S
P
L
O
Q
U
A
C
I
O
U
S
C
K
S
I
Y
X
E
Z
Y
K
O
R
Q
A
V
R
O
Z
Y
L
B
C
C
R
J
L
P
X
Y
L
Q
R
A
M
F
A
R
C
N
V
T
H
Z
K
F
K
B
X
U
U
Z
L
Q
E
J
V
W
N
M
J
G
W
G
A
N
S
D
K
F
K
M
S
Y
A
D
L
L
N
S
P
R
C
Z
O
T
F
T
B
C
W
Z
Y
S
T
I
V
R
W
D
X
G
S
B
C
V
O
O
F
R
D
V
E
T
H
L
I
L
A
Z
Q
F
A
I
E
J
T
I
N
M
O
L
Q
I
Y
W
I
N
O
C
I
Z
B
D
P
B
N
Y
W
L
W
N
D
O
R
G
X
F
H
B
Z
X
Y
I
L
S
R
M
I
C
B
S
R
T
V
G
V
J
A
T
F
I
X
V
N
O
K
W
P
J
U
J
G
I
S
A
Q
B
T
E
C
R
C
Y
W
O
F
N
S
R
S
K
U
N
A
O
X
W
N
Y
T
Q
R
E
G
R
N
M
L
M
S
H
P
M
N
T
R
D
K
E
X
D
E
G
L
V
I
Z
X
S
G
U
C
W
B
X
Z
I
X
G
Q
X
G
K
W
L
Y
E
S
P
C
P
L
E
Z
M
H
L
A
E
I
C
G
Y
N
B
B
Y
G
J
A
V
U
V
Y
L
E
T
B
I
L
R
N
A
Q
A
Z
S
R
Y
U
N
N
K
O
K
W
Q
H
I
Z
B
L
W
O
O
A
P
S
H
O
G
N
F
E
B
K
V
V
S
Z
K
U
F
C
I
O
Q
Z
K
R
G
G
M
I
B
L
W
J
S
T
E
X
R
R
F
Q
Z
I
Q
O
E
I
K
D
C
Y
P
S
A
P
O
Q
T
L
S
X
P
K
N
J
O
H
Y
G
Q
Z
Y
Z
L
Y
L
W
Z
R
G
Q
J
X
W
E
W
L
I
H
T
R
Q
H
R
L
Q
P
V
T
L
I
R
L
T
J
P
T
B
J
I
R
E
K
C
U
Q
S
W
L
Y
V
J
Y
E
P
Q
C
R
Z
F
I
J
Z
E
T
A
M
I
T
L
U
N
E
P
E
H
C
L
U
U
I
T
G
T
R
B
T
E
O
W
C
W
J
V
H
G
O
J
O
V
R
P
G
D
M
H
U
Z
G
W
D
R
A
N
I
X
H
U
L
M
C
C
T
B
B
E
E
Q
I
T
W
Q
N
E
B
T
Z
Q
L
P
N
G
Z
I
O
X
T
Z
U
Y
C
D
E
Q
O
G
T
S
I
L
B
Z
N
A
Q
X
H
O
S
V
A
H
Q
R
T
R
F
P
Z
A
F
Y
E
D
I
S
A
G
O
C
C
T
V
E
O
H
V
R
Q
R
N
B
H
B
N
I
E
S
X
L
J
U
D
V
F
L
P
E
D
T
A
Y
V
Q
L
K
H
U
L
S
P
Y
L
D
H
M
J
E
G
Q
B
R
I
V
H
X
A
U
N
R
E
D
X
V
P
F
P
A
D
Y
R
X
G
Q
V
G
A
Y
F
I
P
H
I
V
U
A
Q
T
I
Q
U
R
R
U
G
C
N
P
V
W
Z
U
B
H
B
W
V
E
X
X
H
G
J
V
Z
C
L
A
E
P
O
H
I
Z
G
D
S
S
E
H
C
L
M
D
U
D
O
P
O
W
T
G
C
W
Z
X
N
L
E
E
I
M
G
C
S
W
O
C
H
C
J
R
W
R
C
L
X
Q
W
D
A
Y
I
X
O
I
Z
N
Q
T
R
C
L
X
N
Q
R
A
H
I
T
K
N
W
S
U
N
P
T
P
Q
T
X
L
S
Q
K
F
W
L
B
E
J
C
Z
D
R
X
M
E
I
Z
P
F
H
V
Y
K
C
M
Z
O
B
M
M
G
B
W
N
D
X
F
Z
P
E
W
C
M
J
Z
W
V
K
Q
U
P
R
M
M
I
J
U
M
Words:
Chess
Esoteric
Internship
Penultimate
ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
CHESS
Garland
Maternal
Succession
ESOTERIC
Originalism
Loquacious
Antidisestablishmentarianism
Email submissions for the Clapham Chronicle to:
[email protected]
8
L