I read A Case of Religious Discrimination. A religious group called the Summum, asked Pioneer Park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah if they could add its own monument to the park. The park already has many monuments to things like 911 and the Ten Commandments. So they asked if they could put a monument to the group Seven Principles of Creation, which is believed to be handed down from god on tablets to Moses on Mount Sinai. The city denied the group the right for their monument to join the others because they only let people who have ties to the community do it. I think that they deserve religious freedom. If one group can leave a statue of the Ten Commandments the there religious views should be equally respected. I agree that the city ultimately elevated the importance of Christianity above other religions. They only allowed the Ten Commandments; there are so many other religions that are represented in America. It is a free country, and everything from Judaism to Daoism should be accepted. By having all types of religions represented in the park it would only let everyone experience all sides of America. In a public park no one should feel as though they are being discriminated against because they aren’t Christian. We have so many privately owned religious places, but people shouldn’t be confined to those spaces. They should feel accepted no matter where they are. So I agree that the park needs to accept all religions or none at all.

Not Religious Discrimination

In this editorial article I read in the New York Times, it tells about religious group in Utah that wanted to post the ten commandments in a park. I don't see the need in doing something like this. I think it is a great thing to have other religions in the world and would love to learn more about other myself. As a christian I wouldn't want to go to the park and looking at something on display to tell me about a religion. Freedom of speech is something I am thankful that we have in this country, but to post something like that in a park you could offend others. I don't think any religion should have the right to do so. The group could always ask to put up words of encouragement, but to post something that is can be so controversial isn't a good idea. They can stand outside their church or homes handing out fliers or anything with the ten commandments on them and it would probably get around faster. I just disagree with posting them in a park only because I wouldn't be too crazy if another religion tried to do that same. There's nothing wrong with getting your word out just be somewhat respectful.

"Anti-gay, Anti- Family

It's been a while since America has been dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Large wars have been fought about this issue. Will it ever be solved? America is known across the world for having a large homosexual population. The international students at Winthrop will can all attest to this fact. They often inquire about, "The Gays", as my Indian roommate terms this group. Most often their views toward homosexuality are not well thought of. Last night at the dinner table, we made fun of a person of whom a homosexual male had an attraction to. That person was not very happy about the other male who liked him. Then, a very interesting discussion arose from our friendly ridicule about homosexuality. The students all viewed homosexuality in a negative way. A common view of it was "disgusting". But opinions about America and homosexuality are blinding to the facts of homosexuality. Gays and Lesbians now are seeking civil unions, domestic partnerships, and marriages. The battle is with the traditional approach of marriage. Traditional and true marriage is a commitment between a man and his wife. This is how it has been for centuries across the world. True marriage must not be changed to befit other types of loving relationships. This would totally screw up what marriage is about. And if marriage is allowed between two males or two women, then were will it stop? Should two family members who love each other get married because they love each other? No, not in this day and age! Previously in earlier times marriage was enacted between cousins or even brother and sister. But it was always an abomination for homosexual relationships to even exist! If two men or women want to get together, live and love each other, fine, but don't call it marriage! Marriage is between man and his wife! Period!

Editorial Response

"Anti-Gay, Anti-Family"
By Dan Savage

The article "Anti-Gay, Anti-Family" was almost heartbreaking in my opinion. How could someone ban the right to love who they want and have families with who they want without being married? I think that it is wrong to ban a legalized union between two members of the same sex. If they love each other, why should it matter if they get married or not? Love is not constrained to the form of a man and woman together. Show me where it says that being heterosexual is the only right way to be. To further thwart the gay couples, there is the potential of banning people from cohabiting outside of a valid marriage. Even if this was aimed mainly for homosexual couples, this affects those of the heterosexual nature as well. Not only could two male partners not adopt a child, but neither could a man and a woman adopt one who are not married. Marriage has become more of a commercial act rather than the spiritual union of one person to another. It has escalated to the simple minded competition of who has the best dress or is being married in the biggest church. I think that many realize how silly it is nowadays to be married in that sense. If they decide to be together without the legal documents, who has the right to say that it is wrong? Divorce rates are higher than ever compared to about 20 years ago. Not only that but it causes extreme trauma onto the children in the household. This is speaking from personal experience. If a couple wants to remain just that, a couple with out the legal titles of husband and wife, why can't they take care of children? Same with homosexual couples. Who is to say that a married heterosexual couple would be better than an unmarried heterosexual couple or even a homosexual couple? By approving this act, this could take legitimate children away from their mothers or fathers who are in fact, gay. This is too extreme. Some children are taken out of homes for a reason and put into foster care. What if the best option was an unmarried couple? This law would deny it. If we are to stand together as Americans, we need to accept the very nature of every American. Whether that is homosexuality or those who don't want to get married. By approving both of these laws, it just breaks the nation apart further.

Andrew Rosenthal "Tainted Justice"

I would have to agree with Andrew Rosenthal that the West Virginia case about how the justice system can be influenced by the special interest groups should be considered. Because big companies that help fund justices campignes and try and get the justices to help them out. I do not think that special interest groups should be able to fund justices' campigne. When groups do this I believe that you take justice out of the equation and replace it with repayment so the groups get what they want. This is something that I think could be a problem because if you have a case and then you pay one the people who are going to jugde that case that is bribing and is against the law. So I agree with Andrew Rosenthal that the case of the special interest group in West Virigina should be brought up.

Editorial Response

I read the editorial article, "A DNA Backlog." This article talks about how there is a significant backlog of rape kits. A law called the Debbie Smith law was passed a few years ago to try and rid of the backlog of rape kits. Debbie Smith was a rape victim whose rape kit was untouched for over six years. There is a 10 year statute of limitations for rape. Assailants are not being prosecuted because by the time most rape kits are tested and the rapists are found, it has already been more than 10 years. Another issue that is a result of the backlog is that it is taking a long time for DNA to be entered into the database. This is a problem because without it, future attacks are not being prevented, and the older cases that may be linked to new DNA are not being solved. The article talks about how this issue needs to be addressed when the new House and Senate take office. I agree with this completely. This is a major issue that has gone unnoticed for a long time, and it is only getting worse. Rape is not being treated as seriously as other violent crimes, and it should be. These women are not only the victims of their rapist, but are victims of law enforcement. It needs to be required for states to spend a certain percentage of their money to decrease this backlog. A report needs to be sent out about the size of the backlog now, and more reports should be sent out in the future showing how much money has been spent on DNA testing. This should gradually decrease the current backlogs in each state.

Anti-Gay, Anti-Family

I read the "Anti-gay, Anti- Family article" in the New York Times Newspaper by Dan Savage . It talks about the approval of anti-gay amendments in Florida, Arkansas, and California where eighteen thousand same sex couples were married just this past Summer and Fall. All this happened because of proposition 8, which now bans same sex couples and heterosexual couples from adopting children if they are not married. The same sex cuoples marriages are in jeapordy, so adopting a child doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon. It sucks that in order to keep homosexuals from adopting children that the people who voted for this had to also keep heterosexuals from adopting also or it would be unconstitutional. In order to make life hard for others who may seem different, they corrupted the chances of others who may be the same as the epople who voted for this proposition. I strongly believe that same sex couples should be able to adopt a child just as a heterosexual couple should be able to whether you are married or not. There are so many families in this world where the child(ren) either have a aingle mom or a single dad and they are out there providing for their children and putting food on the table, helping them make it to college and still being there for them bc THEY ARE STILL A "NORMAL" FAMILY. No matter if a child may have just their mom or just their dad, that perent still loves and cares for them as any parent would. I don't see why they wouldn't want a child who needs a home to be able to live in a homosexual house hold. Research shows that just because your parents are homosexual does NOT mean that their children will be. Anybody can grow up with same sex parents and be heterosexual. It's happened all the time. So what now, Are they gonna make so new law saying that if you are homosexual you can't have children? Because let's say a homosexual male has sex with a female and the female gives all custodity him, will he not be able to keep the child? The same question can be asked for a female, and she's the one who actually goes through the labor, will they take her child away if she is a lesbian? I just think that it is down right ridiculous!

A Case of Religious Discrimination

I read the article in the New York Times about religious discrimination. Call me blind but I didn't really see it as discrimination. The way that I perceived the city of Pleasant Grove City rejecting the application was that they just want to preserve their city's tradition. The city said their reasoning for rejection was that they only accept displays that directly related to the city's history. Although it is almost obvious that they lied by saying they have been saying that for a decade, they had a point. In my opinion, a person or group of people can't just come in somewhere and expect recognition or praise from anyone. In my religion, christianity, humbleness is something like a virtue and boasting about your religion or asking for recognition in a city doesn't display humbleness. I don't see the city's display of the ten commandments as trying to boast about religion because it seems as though Christianity is apart of the city's history. If the Summums want to display the Seven Principle's of Creation they could very well do that at their church, on their cars, and at their homes but if has nothing to do with the history of the city then the city should not have to let them display in their park.

Political Correctness is Ruining Effective Communication

I read an article by Eddie Scarry in the November 6, 2008 issue of the The Johnsonian. The title of the ariticle was "Problems with P.C. idiocy." As I read the article, I laughed at the good points he made from beginning to end. The basic message of the article was that political correctness, which was prominent in the 1990's, makes effective communication in normal conversation nearly impossible and therefore should be done away with. A personal example he used in the article had taken place during his participation in the student political debate.

He was attempting to explain the irrationality of keeping enemy captives in Iraq comfortable during wartime. However, after commenting on prisoners' 8 daily prayer sessions, (there are actually 5) there was a spark of argument at his words and everyone in the room acted as though they were offended. Scarry points out that while the other students were chastising the political correctness of his choice of words, not one of the students took in his original message (That enemy soldiers should not be treated as if they were guests of the prison). All the students heard was, "and the prisoners' eight prayer sessions." Political correctness is idiocy.

An even more ridiculous example, if that is possible, was seen in a 2002 California lawsuit against a teenage girl for saying the common phrase, "that's so gay" in class. A LAWSUIT? really? That is just going too far with the idiocy of political correctness. I can recall that phrase being spoken more than ten thousand times in my high school years. The word "gay" these days can almost be considered slang, for in most cases it does not in any way refer to homosexuality. I do not know how that 2002 case turned out, but I am definately on the poor girls side.

Scarry goes on to end the article with a bit of humor. Read it in the comments section.

A Case of Religious Discrimination

I read the article A Case of Religious Discrimination, where it talks about Pioneer Park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah. The debate is over whether or not the religious group, the Summum, should be allowed to place a monument in the park which already contains a monument of the Ten Commandments and a September 11th memorial. The monument includes the group's Seven Principles of Creation, which it believes were inscribed on tablets handed down from God to Moses on Mount Sinai. Pleasant Grove City rejected the Summum's request telling the group they only accepted displays that directly related to the city's history. The Summum's sued and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circut in Denver agreed with them that the city had no right to discriminate on the basis of the content of the monument.
Religion is a personal choice and therefore should not be discriminated against. In the Pioneer Park case the discrimination was not on one person but a particular group. It is in the Constitution that we have the freedom of speech. By denying the applicaion for the Summum's monument, they were violating the First Amendment for this group. Unfortunately this type of discrimination happens every day, in every city, town, etc. The reason for the continuance of this discrimination is because of the ability to invent new meanings for the words that the founders wrote. The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By not accepting the Summum's application for the placement of their monument, the city was prohibiting the free exercise of this group.

"Anti-Gay, Anti-Family" by Dan Savage

I read the article "Anti-Gay, Anti-Family" by Dan Savage. I was appalled to read about a group of people taking away another, different group's rights. I do not agree with the anti-gay-marriage ammendment that was approved in Florida, Arizona, and California stating that gay couples cannot get married. California used to support gay marriage. According to the article, "18, 000 same-sex couples were married in California this past summer and fall; their marriages are now in limbo". That is heartbreaking for me to hear. I do not completely support the gay lifestyle, because I grew up in the Church and I learned that the bible says it's wrong and against God's will, but I do think that same-sex couples should have equal rights as heterosexual couples. It is especially unfair that California used to support gay marriage and now they've changed their minds and they are leaving all of those same-sex couple who got married in jeopardy. Same sex couples should be treated no differently, in my opinion. They should be treated just as fairly and courteously as opposite sex couples. Furthermore, they should be given the same rights that the rest of America has. This is America afterall. America is the land of the free. Let the gay couples be free. Let them get married. It is only just and fair.
The article also goes on to explain how Arkansas adopted a new law that states that people who are living outside a valid marriage cannot adopt a child or serve as foster parents. The law covers both homo- and heterosexual couples, but it is aimed at the homosexual couples. There are 3,700 childen in Arkansas in state custody and 1,000 of them are up for adoption. Most of the children were mistreated by their parents. It makes no sense to keep unmarried people from being able to adopt children when the children will most likely be better taken care by those couples than they were in their own families or in custody. While the number of children needing homes rises, nothing will be done about this law and many well-deserving couples will not be able to rescue those desperate children. It is sad to read about. I cannot believe things like this are still happening in America. I think that people, married or not, should be able to adopt children, if they are interviewed and deemed suitable for adopting children. Sexual orientation should not matter, either should marital status. I think that the issue should be looked at in terms of whatever is best for the child.

Thomas Friedman's "How to Fix a Flat"

Thomas Freidman’s editorial “How to Fix a Flat” deals not with what its title would imply, but with the apathy of an automobile manufacturer. General Motors (GM) proudly describes itself as the “annual global industry sales leader for 77 years” at
http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/. With such prominence in sales it would seem that the corporation would not need to be begging for money. Yet this is exactly the situation as of last September. After asking for $25 billion in loan guarantees, the company received help from Congress. The result was freedom to use dishonest advertising and customer bonuses: GM could stretch the truth about the MPG their cars featured—in exchange for making these vehicles capable of using ethanol—and could offer gas discounts to customers.

The complaints and tactics of GM outraged New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman—I myself am inclined to concur. Freidman argues that GM wasted its time complaining when it could have been working on designs for more efficient vehicles. Such vehicles are now old news for companies like Honda and Toyota—why should GM be allowed to lag behind?

Freidman also berates the lenience of Michigan’s legislature in dealing with GM. The company should not have been allowed to ignore energy and environmental concerns.

Instead of dodging responsibility, GM should search for ways to create more efficient vehicles.

Dan Savage: "Anti-Gay, Anti-Family"

I disagree with the anti-gay amendments that were approved last Tuesday. In Florida, Arizona, and California, same -sex couples were banned from getting married. Even though some feel that being married to the same sex is wrong, I believe that people shouldn't have the right to tell someone who they can or cannot marry. It's sad hearing about those who live in the same country that I live in going through this phase of being treated unfairly. Regardless if a couple is of the same sex, shouldn't they be able to marry someone that they truely love. I don't see what is the big issue about the situation.

They are not only banning the marrying of gay couples. They are also banning those who are "cohabitating outside a valid marriage" from serving as foster parents or adobting children. Every child has the right to feel accepted and loved. If couples want to share their love with a child, why not let them? In the article Dan Savage made a point. He stated," A gay man living with his male partner cannot adobt his deceased sister's children. This really saddens me everytime I think about it. He also made another statement saying, "If lesbian couples are unfit to care for foster children, are they fit to care for their own children?" I wonder have people thought about that particular situation before that formed these laws? They need to realize that this is an unfair game that they are playing.

"Movies stigmatize other cultures" by Thomas Cornelius

Thomas Cornelius wrote an editorial about how the American movie industry often defiles cultures that are different. He came to this conclusion by thinking how Hollywood portrays certain cultures. For instance, he named such movies as "Freedom Strike," "The Delta Force," and "Rules of Engagement" that have radical Muslim characters. Because movies tend to focus on extremes, it would seem that every Muslim is a radical terrorist, but this is certainly not true by any means. He goes on to say that because Americans are supposed to set a good example, the movie industry should be more sensitive to how they portray other cultures.

I agree with Cornelius completely. Hollywood definitely lacks in consideration of how their movies will sit with viewers outside of the U.S. or viewers who do not fit in the typical American culture. I date a Costa Rican, and whenever we watch a movie, action in particular, he always comments on how the Hispanic character dies first. This upsets him because he feels that the American move industry does not consider Hispanic characters to be worthy of not dying first. Because of him, sometimes I see the U.S. as he, an outsider, would, and it definitely can be offensive or insensitive at times. Hollywood needs to undergo an attitude change and start thinking globally as to how their movies will affect multicultural viewers.

Bob Herbert: “Beyond the Fat Cats”

I agree with Bob Herbert for the most part when he is discussing the current economical situation. If the government can instantly have billions of dollars on hand to bail out large corporations then why can’t they use their money to solve other problems? I don’t agree about the part where he says the current bailout plan is only helping a select few, the fact is a lot of people have stock so when two major corporations go down, so does everyone else. However, the national debt is steadily increasing and no one really thinks about it. Yea it has sticker shock but “hey why worry about it?” The national debt will never be paid off so why not just keep running it up? If we can so easily throw 700 billion dollars at corporations so they do not go bankrupt, why can’t we get the money to solve hunger in America? Alternatively, they could provide houses for homeless people, supply work for everyone that needs a job, and help people get off government care and start making positive changes to their life. There are so many things that could be done with that much money that would far benefit America then what it was used for.

Homework: Blog in response to an editorial article.

Pick and read an editorial article from the New York Times Opinion section, or from the opinionated offering of Winthrop's own Johnsonian. Write a 200 word blog post in which you agree or disagree with the argument made in the opinion article. Make sure to give thoughtful supporting reasons for why you agree or disagree with the article. Make sure to include the author of the article's name, and the title of the article (in quotation marks!). If you think that your response is worthwhile, and you chose to respond to an article from The Johnsonian, I think that you can post it as a comment under the article. Go ahead. Crush the assertions of your colleagues.

NoBama

I have learned through my grandmother never to tell people who to vote for. I cannot remember which election during which this incident happened, but basically, this woman told my grandmother to vote for a specific candidate. If you knew my grandmother, you would know how stubborn she can be. She does not like being told what to do. Being the rebel she is, she voted for the opposite candidate. Ironically, that was also the opposite she would have originally voted for. Yes, this is very childish and silly. Our whole family knows.
I am not going to tell anyone who to vote for, but I will tell you who I am going to vote for (or voted for, since this is late). I voted for John McCain. I am not going to for him because he is white and his opponent is black. I am not going to lie, I am going to vote for John McCain because that's who my family is voting for. I am not interested in politics, and I never really have been. I know that voting for someone because someone else is going to is not right, but the way I look at, at least I voted. Also, I did make my own decision to vote and who I am going to vote for.
My opinion is vote for whom ever you think is the right person. Hopefully next election, I will be alittle more interested in politics.

Go Bama

I have my many reasons why i chose Obama. Originally I was a Hillary supporter all the way. It was disappointing not seeing her on the ticket but soon after that Obama really grew on me. I have many liberal views and couldn't convince anyone to vote for a certain person. Voting shouldn't be because of party or in this case even race but for the person who will get the job done. To me, Obama had many of those qualifying characteristics and I am happy to know he will be our next president. With Biden on his side, he has an advantage with foreign affairs. Peeople say Obama doesn't support the military, that is not true he doesn't support our troops fighting in a war that should have never been started. Every war that the United States has been involved since the very beginning has only been 4 years maximum. Not many realize that but we have now been in Iraq for 6 years or so. I do believe McCain could have brought change too but Obama I believe and trust a little more. To be honest our country just needs someone better than Bush. Whoever was to take the spot as president really had a job waiting for them and not Obama has a lot in his hands. It is sad to see the ignorance, especially from students on campus, saying they want to leave the country. Honestly, we are all Americans and our country has been through a lot and still continues to so we must stand behind our president for his sake and for ourselves. OBAMA 08!

CHANGE!

Yeah, Barrack Obama, "the skinny kid with the funny name", will definitely be the best man to vote for. Reguardless of the controversy of his race and religion, he poses the best energy and motivation that Senator John McCain just doesnt have. Obama has charisma! McCain has arthritus! But dont fret for McCain, because Obama's policies on health care will aid him for the rest of his life. Obama's motto is "change". With an unhealthy economy and home mortgage crisis Obama might promises redemption. Most Republican carry on about how Obama will turn America into a socialst entity and ,in the classic Robin Hood way, give the rich people's hard earned money to the poor. Obviously giving to the poor is a detremental liability to the rich and their votes should be given to Obama! But Obama's intrisic plan is to help middle-class america with the tax cuts. And what about Mrs. Sarah Palin? Where did she come from? As if Carribou Barbie knows how to run a freakin' country? Vote for Barrack Obama! Change!

Republican or Democrat?

This year marked my third time voting for a Presidential election. WOW!

Each and every one of you have your opinions. I would not dare badger you for voting on one side or another. However, I am republican and conservative - the majority of the time. It is rare but I do agree on some democratic views. Regardless, this year did in fact make history and I'm alive to witness and be apart of it.

I am a McCain supporter. Who cares that he's 71. It bothers me that people are ingorant when speaking of such. It's not fair when you take what you've heard versus FACTUAL information and formulate your opinion. Ronald Reagan was 69 when elected in office. He ran our country with Alzeimher's!

I decided to vote Christian. Not Muslim or any other denomination.

One reason I was not supporting Obama for the reason that he was/is taxing small businesses. I do not expect any of you younger students to follow my reasoning; however, I have been employed and paying taxes for 13 years. Yes, I've worked since the age of 14! It just so happens that I am employed by a small business, one that will be affected. Guess what that means for me? NO RAISE this year or any year, for that matter (hypothetically speaking). I work hard to earn my paycheck and my job isn't just my job; it's my career. Therefore, I deserve to be compensated but my employer should not be punished double either.

I guess at this point, it doesn't matter. I did my part and voted. The election is over. Obama is our President elect - and I will support my country as I have always.