A 

few years ago, a friend 
told me that she thought 
the world would be a more 

peaceful place without religion. 
Considering all the violence that 
has been committed in the name 
of religion, from the Crusades 
to 9/11, it’s an easy conclusion 
to draw. As a Catholic, though, 
the statement felt more like an 
accusation, and it stung.

I was raised Catholic and 

went to Catholic school for 
most of my life, so Catholicism 
is a central component of my 
identity. 
My 
Catholicism, 
my 

religion, always promoted love, 
tolerance, acceptance and peace. 
My religion taught me to value 
and cherish human life, so what 
does the Lord’s Resistance Army 
have to do with my Christianity? 
Fundamentally, I felt that the 
actions of others, in history 
and present times, could not 
define my religion. The way I 
understand Jesus, his actions 
and his message means that to 
me, human life is sacred and 
precious. 
Thus, 
anyone 
who 

claims to be Catholic but acts in a 
way that disregards that value of 
human life cannot be practicing 
my Catholicism.

For 
me, 
my 
faith 
means 

the opposite of violence and 
hatred. 
Having 
my 
religion, 

and by extension, my values, 
associated with the promotion 
of violence and intolerance was 
alienating and demeaning. The 
same is likely true for hundreds 
of millions of Muslims around 
the globe when their religion is 
deemed inherently violent by 
pundits, respected publications 
and the U.S. president-elect.

Recent 
attacks 
committed 

by terrorist organizations who 
preach a radical, violent version 
of Islam have seemingly brought 
the entire religion up for debate. 
The question of whether Islam 
is inherently violent has led 
to discrimination against and 
alienation of Muslims in the 
West. In France, where many 
terrorist attacks have occurred 
in the name of ISIS, towns have 
been banning Muslim women 
from wearing burkinis at the 
beach. 
Despite 
court 
rulings 

that mayors do not have the 
right to ban burkinis, several 
French 
mayors 
continued 

to enforce the ban. In the 
United States, as we know, our 
president-elect responded to the 
Orlando massacre by saying he 
“appreciate(d) the congrats on 
being right on radical Islamic 

terrorism” and reiterating his 
call 
to 
suspend 
immigration 

“from areas of the world when 
there is a proven history of 
terrorism 
against 
the 
United 

States, Europe or our allies.”

And 
so, 
fear 
begets 

discrimination. As one recent 
ISIS defector put it, “we were 
happy when Trump said bad 
things about Muslims because 
he makes it very clear that there 
are two teams in this battle: 
the Islamic team and the anti-
Islamic team.” Essentially, when 
more than 1.6 billion Muslims are 
grouped in with extremists and 
Islam is painted as violent, we 
are taking the bait and playing 
right into ISIS’s hands.

But, if Islam is not violent, 

how 
should 
we 
understand 

groups like ISIS? I think it’s 
useful to look at the intersection 
of violence and Islam the same 
way I viewed the intersection of 
violence and Christianity. Last 
semester, I took a class called 
“Anthropology of Islam,” and 
the more I learned about Islam, 
the 
more 
similarities 
I 
saw 

between Islam and Christianity. 
Both religions have sacred texts 
that are at times conspicuously 
violent 
because 
they 
are 

ultimately 
products 
of 
their 

times. But just as the Catholic 
Church 
promotes 
pacifism 

because it interprets the Bible 
in a more nuanced manner, so 
too do many Muslims interpret 
Islamic texts in more intelligent 
and holistic ways than ISIS does.

For example, I can read in 

Exodus 
35:2 
that 
someone 

who works on the Sabbath Day 
should be put to death, but I 
can recognize the endorsement 
of violence as an indication 
that violence was tolerated in 
6th-century 
B.C.E. 
Therefore, 

I prefer to focus on the Bible 
verses that encapsulate Jesus’s 
values 
and 
promote 
love, 

peace and understanding, like 
Galatians 
5:22-23: 
“The 
fruit 

of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, 
forbearance, kindness, goodness, 
faithfulness, gentleness and self-
control.” This isn’t just willful 
ignorance or selective reading; 
it’s an informed analysis that 
looks at the bigger picture. 
Similarly, cherry-picked quotes 
from Islam’s texts are used to 
justify violence, but these violent 
quotes entirely miss the point.

Since there is no Muslim 

equivalent of a pope who gets 
to have a final say on what 
the 
Quran 
means 
or 
what 

is 
considered 
Islamic, 
there 

are 
varied 
interpretations 
of 

Islam. Islam is shaped by those 
who practice it, and since it is 

practiced in different countries 
all over the world by people with 
different life experiences, there 
is a wide array of forms and 
understandings of Islam.

In 
fact, 
more 
than 
120 

Islamic scholars from around 
the world published a letter 
to 
ISIS 
saying: 
“You 
have 

misinterpreted 
Islam 
into 
a 

religion of harshness, brutality, 
torture and murder. This is a 
great wrong and an offense to 
Islam, to Muslims and to the 
entire 
world.” 
Importantly, 

these 
scholars 
used 
Islamic 

theological arguments to refute 
ISIS’s interpretation of Islam. 
As Nihad Awad, the director 
of the Council on American 
Islamic Relations said, “They 
have a twisted theology. They 
have relied many times, to 
mobilize 
and 
recruit 
young 

people, on classic religious texts 
that have been misinterpreted 
and misunderstood.”

The 
subjective 
nature 
of 

religion means that it often can 
be a reflection of each person, 
group and society that practices 
it. When I attend Mass in 
different areas, I often find that 
churches vary according to the 
values of each area. In Ann Arbor, 
for 
example, 
my 
experience 

at St. Mary’s Catholic Church 
has shown me a church that 
values social justice, promotes 
inclusion 
and 
is 
actively 

involved 
in 
the 
community. 

Other churches that I have 
attended, 
however, 
have 

pushed 
more 
conservative 

agendas. Religion manifests 
according to the social and 
cultural conditions in which 
it is practiced.

Thus, it stands to reason that 

religious violence says more 
about the area it emerges from 
than it does about the religion. 
ISIS, after all, does not exist 
in a vacuum. It emerged from 
the chaos and conflict in Iraq 
and Syria, and it continues to 
exploit these factors to gain 
power and control. So, when 
examining 
the 
intersection 

of 
religion 
and 
violence, 

we should not assume that 
correlation 
means 
causation. 

This means that we should look 
more critically at ISIS’s claims 
to Islam instead of taking their 
propaganda at face value. It 
also means that the solution to 
homegrown terrorism in the 
United States isn’t a blanket 
ban on Muslim immigration.

M

y family and I first 
decided 
to 
take 
a 

vacation 
to 
Hawaii 

in early 2008. It just so happened 
that these islands of paradise were 
also the birthplace of our newly 
elected president, a 
Black 
man 
named 

Barack 
Hussein 

Obama. And on this 
vacation to Hawaii, I 
recall the passion and 
enthusiasm of some 
Americans 
being 

grossly outweighed by 
the negative dismissal 
and 
condemnation 

others had toward our 
new president.

This 
was 
when 

I began to understand what 
resistance against our president 
meant. 
Eight 
years 
ago, 
my 

political views were misinformed, 
bordering 
on 
ignorant. 
My 

positions were rooted in the trust 
I placed in adults, alongside my 
lack of education. I was taught 
to believe our new president was 
more than dangerous — he was a 
threat to our way of life. Looking 
back now, the amount of content 
from the right dedicated to the 
condemnation 
and 
steadfast 

resistance to President Obama 
was staggering. Statements from 
individuals 
commanding 
large 

audiences like Rush Limbaugh, 
who hoped four days before the 
inauguration that Obama would 
fail, or the dedication of Fox News, 
which began a campaign of anti-
Obama stories prior to his first 
days in office.

And I, a 13-year-old on vacation, 

blindly developed an anger and 
hatred of a man solely because of 
my young mind’s susceptibility to 
propaganda. I distinctly remember 
being told that Hawaii wasn’t even 
his real birthplace, and like the 
adults around me who believed the 
same lie, I needed no evidence. I 
fell prey to propaganda and could 
have easily become one of the 
constant Obama-blamers we have 
all come to love on Facebook.

Yet, eight years later, my family 

and I returned to the islands 
of Hawaii, and as a testament 
to freedom of thought and the 
attainment of a proper education, 
I 
traveled 
this 
time 
reading 

“The Audacity of Hope.” It was 
extremely fitting, now eight years 
later and being enlightened to some 

extent, reading the 2006 words 
of a passionate and extremely 
optimistic Sen. Obama — while 
simultaneously 
watching 
and 

listening to the now departing two-
term President Obama comment 

on what he believed 
his 
administration’s 

success 
and 
failures 

were.

And 
what 
struck 

me most about the 
difference 
between 

President 
Obama’s 

two 
mindsets 
was 

the way in which he 
condemned, yet was 
somewhat 
impressed 

by, the audacity of 
the resistance against 

his platform exalting hope and 
change. The discipline and degree 
of 
precision 
that 
Republicans 

such as Mitch McConnell, John 
Boehner and Paul Ryan enforced 
over their party was incredible. 
During Obama’s term, Republicans 
executed plans for a lack of 
compromise and an unwillingness 
to work towards resolutions, while 
pandering towards an uneducated 
growing electorate being fooled by 
radical members of the right who 
have now ascended to power. 

Reading the optimism within 

“The Audacity of Hope,” I felt 
what many Americans must have 
in 2008 and 2009 — the feeling 
that this man had somehow 
developed the capability to push 
for 
rational, 
Democratic, 
yet 

centrist, measures to compromise 
and 
solve 
the 
several 
issues 

plaguing this nation. However, 
hearing President Obama speak 
recently to his ex-senior adviser 
David Axelrod on his podcast “The 
Axe Files,” his tired voice reveals 
the constant strain the attempts at 
progress have personally cost him 
over his eight-year tenure. Every 
step, action and moment of the 
administration 
was 
scrutinized, 

politicized and radicalized by 
an aggressive opposition, all in 
the name of defending their core 
party beliefs.

To what extent does defending 

your beliefs allow for lack of 
compromise 
or 
acceptance 
of 

the opposition? Whether it be 
through failing to fulfill your 
constitutional 
obligations, 
like 

in the case of the Senate not 
voting on Merrick Garland for 
the Supreme Court vacancy, or of 

Paul Ryan and the Republican-
led House, who engaged in the 
most aggressive gerrymandering 
in the hopes of minimizing 
Democratic influence — was this 
all done in the name of defending 
Republican beliefs? Or perhaps a 
better example would be Sen. Ted 
Cruz’s insane quest to default 
on our national debt unless we 
accept his beliefs on abortion?

That 
is 
the 
audacity 
of 

resistance. 
Republicans 

imposed a strict dogma upon 
their followers in the hopes 
of reclaiming the positions of 
power they once held, in order to 
impose dated ideas that have not 
only failed the American public 
but stagnated the progression 
of our society and economy as 
a whole. In the process they 
radicalized 
generations 
of 

Americans, even myself for a 
brief time, blatantly pandering 
to every irrational position and 
claim about a president who 
promised progressive change.

And now they have elected 

a man I have no fear calling a 
childish monster. A six-year-old 
with nuclear launch codes. A 
child who is the polar opposite 
of the man inaugurated eight 
years ago. And this is where 
I 
ask, 
how 
shall 
Americans, 

Democrats 
and 
Republicans 

alike impose a resistance against 
an administration that does in 
fact pose a threat to our nation? 
An 
administration 
that 
sides 

with foreign dictators over our 
own intelligence communities? 
An administration that elevates 
the 
reactionary 
“alt-right” 
to 

the uppermost levels of policy 
making 
within 
the 
White 

House? 
We 
as 
a 
collective 

citizenship should take a lesson 
from 
the 
uncompromising 

Republican party that sought 
oh-so-patriotically to “defend” 
and 
“protect” 
America 
from 

President Obama those eight 
years ago. The only way we 
can hope to once again enact 
those ideas found within the 
pages 
of 
“The 
Audacity 
of 

Hope” is through a strict and 
uncompromising 
resistance, 

checking our future president 
every step of the way.

Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, January 12, 2017

The case for a six-team playoff

DAVID DONNANTUONO | OP-ED

N

ow 
that 
the 
college 

football 
season 
is 

officially 
over, 
I’ve 

begun to reflect on some of the 
debates I have had the past few 
weeks over the future of the 
postseason. I think we can all 
agree that whatever keeps the 
door open for more games, like 
Monday 
night’s 
all-time 
title 

rematch and last week’s Rose 
Bowl, is the way to go. After 
listening to a friend insist on the 
need for an eight-team playoff
 

and my dad suggest the return 
of a one and two seed title rather 
than an expansion of the playoff, 
I figured I’d throw my two cents 
out there.

Some argue that if a team isn’t 

among the top four in the country, 
why would they deserve to even be 
in the conversation? Not the worst 
point, especially given the past two 
title games have been between 
teams that would have faced each 
other regardless of there being a 
playoff in the first place. Others 
are adamant that an eight-team 

playoff is both the right thing to do 
and an inevitability.

Let me preface this by saying 

there are strong arguments for 
keeping 
the 
College 
Football 

Playoff as is, but here’s where 
my argument comes in: If an 
expansion of the CFP is in our 
future, there’s a right and a wrong 
way to do it. In my opinion, a six-
team playoff would preserve many 
of the elements that have made 
the current playoff such a success, 
while providing an answer to what 
it has left many of us to want. My 
vision is as follows.

Format

The format would include the 

top six teams in the country and 
a maximum of two teams from 
a single conference. This year, 
the six teams would have been 
Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, 
Washington, 
Penn 
State 
and 

Oklahoma. (Sadly, this structure 
would have still kept Michigan 
out of the playoff this year). That’s 
one from each of the five major 
conferences, and a second from the 
Big Ten, which was measurably 
the strongest conference at the end 
of the regular season.

Contrary 
to 
some 
people’s 

presumptions, 
Power 
Five 

conference champions should not 
be 
automatic 
qualifiers. 
Think 

of it this way: Had Alabama 
dropped this year’s Southeastern 
Conference 
championship, 
a 

three-loss Florida still wouldn’t 
have been worthy of a spot in the 
playoff. Instead, they would earn 
a Bowl Championship Series bowl 
over Auburn, and a 12-1 ‘Bama 
would remain in the playoff
 

as a high seed. Conferences 
would still be free to decide 
whether or not they schedule a 
championship game.

The one and two seeds would 

have byes while two quarterfinal 
games would be played in mid-
December between the three seed 
and six seed, and the four seed and 
five seed. From there, the playoff
 

would proceed as it stands. The 

top team would play the lowest 
remaining seed, and the two seed 
would play the other quarterfinal 
winner at the end of December 
or beginning of January. The 
championship would then occur 
on Monday the following week.

Arguments against an eight-

team playoff

When considering doubling the 

four-team field, there are a few 
realities one must accept. First 
and foremost, it would make other 
BCS bowls less meaningful, while 
diluting the playoff itself. With 
four quarterfinals on the same 
weekend, ratings for each game 
would likely drop (casual fans 
won’t watch 15 hours of football 
in one weekend), while both the 
caliber and prestige of BCS bowls 
not part of the playoff would lower. 
A six-team playoff would allow 
for two or three high-stakes BCS 
bowls, as they would still include 
the second-best teams of each 
conference (or the third best from 
the strongest conference in a 
given year).

Second, the top two teams in the 

country shouldn’t be given another 
additional 
postseason 
game 

against a lower-ranked opponent. 
Nick 
Saban 
would’ve 
been 

livid if his 13-0 Crimson Tide 
had been forced to add three-
loss Wisconsin to their already 
difficult path toward the title. The 
top two teams in the country 
should be rewarded for their 
consistency 
and 
dominance 

throughout the season.

Finally, it would lower the 

stakes for each year’s biggest 
rivalry games. With an eight-
team 
playoff, 
this 
year’s 

Michigan 
versus 
OSU 
game 

would have just been a battle of 
seeding, as opposed to the fight 
for a title.

REBECCA LERNER

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

EMMA KINERY

Editor in Chief

ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY 

and REBECCA TARNOPOL 

Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan

Max Lubell

Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki

Anna Polumbo-Levy 

Jason Rowland

Ali Safawi

Kevin Sweitzer

Rebecca Tarnopol

Ashley Tjhung

Stephanie Trierweiler

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

David Donnantuono is an LSA 

junior.

The audacity of resistance

MICHAEL MORDARSKI | COLUMN

MICHAEL 

MORDARSKI

The subjective nature of religion

MARY KATE WINN | COLUMN

ERIN WAKELAND | CONTACT ERIN AT ERINRAY@UMICH.EDU

Michael Mordarski can be reached 

at mmordars@umich.edu.

MARY KATE WINN

 
 Read more at

michigandaily.com

Mary Kate Winn can be reached 

at winnm@umich.edu.

DAVID DONNANTUONO