Should religion and bible studies be incorporated into the curriculum in Texas high schools? My answer to this is an emphatic NO. I am not a religious person, and do not believe in god, but that is not the only reason that I agree with Jenny Tran's views in her commentary, "New Bible Requirement Hits Texas Schools This Fall," in which she discusses the issue of recent legislation requiring bible courses in Texas high schools.
Jenny pointedly disagreed with arguments made by teachers and politicians that say that in order to fully understand history and literature, children must also have biblical knowledge. While I admit that history is chock full of references to religion as the cause for many events, such as the surge of immigration to the United States in the early 1900's by Europeans who were fleeing religious persecution, but this does not mean that I need to be able to recite the ten commandments by memory. I believe that the important facts and knowledge regarding our country's past and that of the world can be easily understood without deep religious or biblical knowledge.
As Jenny says, "I'm not against religions that intertwine with the Bible but I believe schools shouldn't have Bible classes because religion is such a personal and culturally touchy topic." She points out an important aspect of this issue, which is the extremely controversial and broad associations that people have with religion. What I struggle to understand is exactly how teachers are going to go about explaining the importance and truth of the bible to their Jewish, Buddhist, and atheist students. Why is it that these students should be forced to learn about something that they may not subscribe to by belief or morals? There is an extremely fine line between teaching facts about the bible and its interplay into history and literature and promoting the beliefs that it preaches. If we really want to be fair and politically correct, then high schools should also be required to teach the writings of the Koran, the Torah, and all other religious documents because each religion has an important place in history.
To me, religion and the bible are completely subjective things because to some they are fact and a way of life, when to me they are simply creations of men who fear death. Obviously, I have specific opinions regarding religion that would have been opposed by the teachings of the bible in school. I think that there are a lot of people like me who would not stand for this in a public curriculum. At least not for long. I went through four years of high school and learned quite a lot about history and literature, and continued studying the topics into college. At no point was the bible discussed, and I feel that I am perfectly knowledgeable about both subjects and would be no better off had I had biblical teachings.
Finally, our first amendment gives us the right to freedom of religion, meaning that we can choose to practice (or not) whichever religion we want. I stress the OR NOT portion of this because I think that it is the part that is violated when schools introduce religion into their courses. I agree with Jenny's opinion that school and religion do not mix, and think that she brought up good points in arguing for this stance. The use of quotes and facts regarding the legislation helped me, the reader, get a good idea about how this issue came about and what its status is in our state. Hopefully, parents and legislators will form a large opposition to this law and remove all religion from public high schools in Texas, and soon.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Lack of Voting = Lack of Democracy
Every time there is an important election held, the candidates make a huge effort to appeal specifically to the youngest voting age group and to get them out to vote, which something they do less than any other age group. In the past two elections the percentage voter turnout amongst 18-24 year olds was 47 and 49 percent respectively. Considering the effect that 50 percent of all 18-24 year olds could make in the election, this is quite pathetic. Why is it that such a large percentage of this age group are not voting? I believe that laziness and political apathy are among the most prevalent reasons for the lack of young voters. It doesn't seem like it, but there are definitely going to be consequences for this trend should voters continue to ignore the polls.
I am focusing on youth voters due to the fact that habits form early and hard to break, so if they don't vote early in their lives there is a good chance that they won't start to do it later. Obviously, if young voters are underrepresented in the polls, then their collected majority opinion will not be recognized or have an affect on the outcome of the election to the degree that it could, and should. A democracy is a government run by the people and based on the majority rule. If a significant group of those people are not reporting on their opinions and desires, then the government is not a comprehensive and complete democracy. This is why it is particularly irksome when I hear my peers complain about our leaders and their decisions when they did not take the time to vote for the candidate that they would rather have had won. It isn't as if one or two votes is going to tip the election one way or another, however it is a start. If one becomes two, becomes, seven, becomes one hundred thousand voters and beyond, things could inch their way towards a more representative election outcome.
Candidates have been reaching out to the youth voters more than ever in the past few elections which has a smaller effect than was hoped. I think that it isn't something that can be changed by making it a trend or by giving people incentives, rather it needs to be a shift in how our country and youth view government. At this point I am not making a proposal as to how to make this shift, but I think it is worth a lot of thought by the media, public officials, and parents who all have an influence on our children's attitude formation regarding politics, our government, and their role in it.
I am focusing on youth voters due to the fact that habits form early and hard to break, so if they don't vote early in their lives there is a good chance that they won't start to do it later. Obviously, if young voters are underrepresented in the polls, then their collected majority opinion will not be recognized or have an affect on the outcome of the election to the degree that it could, and should. A democracy is a government run by the people and based on the majority rule. If a significant group of those people are not reporting on their opinions and desires, then the government is not a comprehensive and complete democracy. This is why it is particularly irksome when I hear my peers complain about our leaders and their decisions when they did not take the time to vote for the candidate that they would rather have had won. It isn't as if one or two votes is going to tip the election one way or another, however it is a start. If one becomes two, becomes, seven, becomes one hundred thousand voters and beyond, things could inch their way towards a more representative election outcome.
Candidates have been reaching out to the youth voters more than ever in the past few elections which has a smaller effect than was hoped. I think that it isn't something that can be changed by making it a trend or by giving people incentives, rather it needs to be a shift in how our country and youth view government. At this point I am not making a proposal as to how to make this shift, but I think it is worth a lot of thought by the media, public officials, and parents who all have an influence on our children's attitude formation regarding politics, our government, and their role in it.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Too Quick to Judge
In her commentary blog post, Heather (Heather's Political Corner), writes about the recent proposals for government health care reforms in the United States. The proposed plan would provide a government funded option for people to get health care services regardless of income, homelessness, or unemployment. It is based on the idea that access to quality health care is a basic human right, and that in an upper class society like ours, we have the ability to provide this right to all of our citizens.
Heather was quick to dismiss the idea as "too good to be true" and stated that while it was intended to be affordable and government funded, we would be taxed in order to pay for it. In my opinion, Heather is not very informed about the particulars of the health care plans that have gained prominence amongst legislators. She seems to be unaware of the fact that it would not be a complete end to private health care, and that citizens would still be able to choose alternative providers, including those programs offered through their employers, at their own discretion.
I think that any argument requires convincing and trustworthy sources and support in order to carry any weight, and that is something that her judgments are clearly lacking. She seems to have bought into the disinformation that is circulating regarding this issue. Heather seems to think that the proposed plans for government health care are going to set up a socialist system where everyone has one equal option; the government provided plan. However, this is not the case at all.
I don't find her commentary all that informative because it seems like her opinion is all that she is giving to her readers. One of the options that has been proposed is known as single-payer health care, and is nothing like the socialist government program that Heather is condemning. I don't disrespect her opinion, rather I feel that if she had developed her argument using quotes from experts on the subject or article links to reputable sources, she would have been more persuasive in her argument against government health care options.
Overall, I think that the benefits of a government supported health care option, such as single-payer health care plans, outweigh the possible negative consequences such as a slight increase in taxes. Just one glance at the number of private bankruptcies due to the inability of citizens to pay mounting medical bills is enough for me to agree that something, including government intervention, needs to be done to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable and quality health care.
Heather was quick to dismiss the idea as "too good to be true" and stated that while it was intended to be affordable and government funded, we would be taxed in order to pay for it. In my opinion, Heather is not very informed about the particulars of the health care plans that have gained prominence amongst legislators. She seems to be unaware of the fact that it would not be a complete end to private health care, and that citizens would still be able to choose alternative providers, including those programs offered through their employers, at their own discretion.
I think that any argument requires convincing and trustworthy sources and support in order to carry any weight, and that is something that her judgments are clearly lacking. She seems to have bought into the disinformation that is circulating regarding this issue. Heather seems to think that the proposed plans for government health care are going to set up a socialist system where everyone has one equal option; the government provided plan. However, this is not the case at all.
I don't find her commentary all that informative because it seems like her opinion is all that she is giving to her readers. One of the options that has been proposed is known as single-payer health care, and is nothing like the socialist government program that Heather is condemning. I don't disrespect her opinion, rather I feel that if she had developed her argument using quotes from experts on the subject or article links to reputable sources, she would have been more persuasive in her argument against government health care options.
Overall, I think that the benefits of a government supported health care option, such as single-payer health care plans, outweigh the possible negative consequences such as a slight increase in taxes. Just one glance at the number of private bankruptcies due to the inability of citizens to pay mounting medical bills is enough for me to agree that something, including government intervention, needs to be done to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable and quality health care.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
'Mountain out of Mole Hill' Approach Slows Government
Usually, incidents of arrest and small matters unrelated to the presidency or politics don't seem like they should ever show up as topics in the upper echelons of our government, but all too often it seems that our leaders are forced by the press and looming approval polls to speak to topics and issues that are simply time wasters. Reports that president Obama's approval ratings had recently fallen were asserting that the main cause of this decline is the remarks he made during a press conference when asked a question about a recent event in the media.
On July 16th, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was charged with disorderly conduct following an incident in his home, however the charges were later dropped. Gates, a high profile African American in academia believed that he had been profiled by the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, who is white. During a press conference a week later, president Obama was asked questions regarding the incident and stated that he thought the police "acted stupidly" in their handling of this incident. I'm not making any claims as to the truth of the claims made by Gates because I don't believe that the media has enough information to know one way or another. Instead, I am taking issue with the fact that this is even something that the president has to waste his time and breath over.
While I do believe that racial profiling is a terrible and unethical practice, I don't believe that this incident is a clear cut case of it, as no charges were filed and no one can attest to it. If it were a blatant profiling of Sgt. Crowley, then I would expect him to be reprimanded by his superiors and dealt with in court between him and Gates. At no point do I deem it necessary for our president, who is up to his ears in issues from health care reform to the war in Iraq, to make it a personal issue that he needs to comment on and resolve.
NPR reported on the story and had quoted the president as saying that he should have more carefully "calibrated" his remarks and that he in no way was accusing Crowley of being stupid. "And this evening, Obama, Gates and Crowley are due to sit down and talk -- over beers -- at the White House." This last quote from the aforementioned article just reiterates my point. The president is inviting these men to the White House for beers and conversation in order (in my opinion) to look like he is handling the situation from both sides. On one side, he was standing up for minorities and defending Gates' claim that he was profiled, when he made his initial statement. And now, realizing his blunder and seeing his approval rating decline, he is attempting to make nice with the offended party.
Don't be confused, I am not taking issue with president Obama's comments or his attempt at diplomacy between the two men, what I am finding odd is the fact that the ball from this issue is even remotely near his court. I think that the media cause events like the one between professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley to be blown out of proportion and demand opinions from people like the president who are not remotely a part of the situation. This just causes the president to have to formulate comments that the people want to hear, and then save face if he, god forbid, offends some white guy. Hopefully, as his presidency forges ahead, our president will just block out the white noise of the media and spend time commenting on and fixing the real problems facing our nation.
On July 16th, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates was charged with disorderly conduct following an incident in his home, however the charges were later dropped. Gates, a high profile African American in academia believed that he had been profiled by the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, who is white. During a press conference a week later, president Obama was asked questions regarding the incident and stated that he thought the police "acted stupidly" in their handling of this incident. I'm not making any claims as to the truth of the claims made by Gates because I don't believe that the media has enough information to know one way or another. Instead, I am taking issue with the fact that this is even something that the president has to waste his time and breath over.
While I do believe that racial profiling is a terrible and unethical practice, I don't believe that this incident is a clear cut case of it, as no charges were filed and no one can attest to it. If it were a blatant profiling of Sgt. Crowley, then I would expect him to be reprimanded by his superiors and dealt with in court between him and Gates. At no point do I deem it necessary for our president, who is up to his ears in issues from health care reform to the war in Iraq, to make it a personal issue that he needs to comment on and resolve.
NPR reported on the story and had quoted the president as saying that he should have more carefully "calibrated" his remarks and that he in no way was accusing Crowley of being stupid. "And this evening, Obama, Gates and Crowley are due to sit down and talk -- over beers -- at the White House." This last quote from the aforementioned article just reiterates my point. The president is inviting these men to the White House for beers and conversation in order (in my opinion) to look like he is handling the situation from both sides. On one side, he was standing up for minorities and defending Gates' claim that he was profiled, when he made his initial statement. And now, realizing his blunder and seeing his approval rating decline, he is attempting to make nice with the offended party.
Don't be confused, I am not taking issue with president Obama's comments or his attempt at diplomacy between the two men, what I am finding odd is the fact that the ball from this issue is even remotely near his court. I think that the media cause events like the one between professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley to be blown out of proportion and demand opinions from people like the president who are not remotely a part of the situation. This just causes the president to have to formulate comments that the people want to hear, and then save face if he, god forbid, offends some white guy. Hopefully, as his presidency forges ahead, our president will just block out the white noise of the media and spend time commenting on and fixing the real problems facing our nation.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Generation "Daily Show"
If you ask a college student where they get their news and political information, odds are the Daily Show would be on the list, if not at the top. This has caused some scholars concern due to the satirical nature of the show's content, but competing research has shown that consumers of the Daily Show are generally more informed and perform more civic engagement than those who simply "consume" the news from major television news programs.
In the commentary article, "The Daily Show Generation," by Mary Zeiss Stange, research and her own personal experience with students provides the basis of her claim that the Daily Show is a highly informative outlet for current events and provides incentive to become more knowledgeable.
Stange initially points to research conducted by two professors at East Carolina University who found that watching John Stewart's nightly show ends up causing young people to become more cynical about the government and news media. They explain that because of the impressionable nature of college aged youth, they are more easily swayed to believe what a popular show is telling them rather than think through it critically. By presenting this competing research at the onset of the article, Stange shows the opposing viewpoint she is going up against. She then points to far more compelling reasons why this is not necessarily (nor likely) the case.
As a professor, Stange requires her students to bring in and report on current events regularly, and to pay attention to the packaging that the information comes in. Over the years the internet has come to dominate the way that young people attain news and political information, which actually requires them to become more civically engaged and search it out themselves. This is compelling evidence that simply reading a newspaper or watching a national news broadcast won't give you the depth of information that is necessary to fully understand what is happening on a local and national level in politics.
It seems as though the intended audience for this commentary are adults over the age of thirty who do not view the Daily Show as a credible news source, and who are disheartened by the decline of newspaper readership and the lack of major news network consumption by today's youth. If you are already a Daily Show viewer, then I think that this article would just confirm your currently held beliefs regarding the newsworthiness of its content and contribution to civic engagement and knowledge. If not however, it may open your eyes to the benefits of this new type of satire-based political coverage.
I think that Stange is correct in her assertion that the news available online is highly valuable to youth today. This is important because it connects to the increased viewership of the Daily Show as well. The reason that viewers of the Daily Show are so knowledgeable regarding news and politics is because of the very nature of the show's content. In order to understand the humor of the show, a viewer needs to have previous understanding of the story or piece of news being discussed. Without first reading a news article or watching some new source, a person would not find the Daily Show funny and would likely turn the channel. This is definitely proof of an increased level of political and news knowledge amongst Daily Show viewers. Stange states that, "The Daily Show generation, in other words, is not only apt to be more concerned about politics but also more likely to be spurred to do something with that concern."
As a college aged person, I agree with Stange in all regards of her analysis of the political knowledge of youth today because I feel that it is accurate with what my friends, classmates, and I do in terms of news consumption. Whether or not this changes down the road, remains to be seen as more and more generations rely heavily (if not solely) on the internet and shows such as the Daily Show as their news sources.
In the commentary article, "The Daily Show Generation," by Mary Zeiss Stange, research and her own personal experience with students provides the basis of her claim that the Daily Show is a highly informative outlet for current events and provides incentive to become more knowledgeable.
Stange initially points to research conducted by two professors at East Carolina University who found that watching John Stewart's nightly show ends up causing young people to become more cynical about the government and news media. They explain that because of the impressionable nature of college aged youth, they are more easily swayed to believe what a popular show is telling them rather than think through it critically. By presenting this competing research at the onset of the article, Stange shows the opposing viewpoint she is going up against. She then points to far more compelling reasons why this is not necessarily (nor likely) the case.
As a professor, Stange requires her students to bring in and report on current events regularly, and to pay attention to the packaging that the information comes in. Over the years the internet has come to dominate the way that young people attain news and political information, which actually requires them to become more civically engaged and search it out themselves. This is compelling evidence that simply reading a newspaper or watching a national news broadcast won't give you the depth of information that is necessary to fully understand what is happening on a local and national level in politics.
It seems as though the intended audience for this commentary are adults over the age of thirty who do not view the Daily Show as a credible news source, and who are disheartened by the decline of newspaper readership and the lack of major news network consumption by today's youth. If you are already a Daily Show viewer, then I think that this article would just confirm your currently held beliefs regarding the newsworthiness of its content and contribution to civic engagement and knowledge. If not however, it may open your eyes to the benefits of this new type of satire-based political coverage.
I think that Stange is correct in her assertion that the news available online is highly valuable to youth today. This is important because it connects to the increased viewership of the Daily Show as well. The reason that viewers of the Daily Show are so knowledgeable regarding news and politics is because of the very nature of the show's content. In order to understand the humor of the show, a viewer needs to have previous understanding of the story or piece of news being discussed. Without first reading a news article or watching some new source, a person would not find the Daily Show funny and would likely turn the channel. This is definitely proof of an increased level of political and news knowledge amongst Daily Show viewers. Stange states that, "The Daily Show generation, in other words, is not only apt to be more concerned about politics but also more likely to be spurred to do something with that concern."
As a college aged person, I agree with Stange in all regards of her analysis of the political knowledge of youth today because I feel that it is accurate with what my friends, classmates, and I do in terms of news consumption. Whether or not this changes down the road, remains to be seen as more and more generations rely heavily (if not solely) on the internet and shows such as the Daily Show as their news sources.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Must Go
Many policies in our government's history were founded on principles of segregation, discrimination and moral judgement on the part of those in the upper echelon of the decision making process. One such policy, the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military, is finally in the process of repeal. The issue of gay participation in the military is one of much dissent which is split mainly along generational lines. Obama has stated that it is a process of convincing those who are older and more traditional in their views that this policy is promoting discrimination in our military.
A recent piece by Mary McCarty of Dayton Daily News which was published in the Austin American Statesman spoke to this issue and how immoral and hurtful to our military the current policy is. In her article, Patience of a Patriot, McCarty introduces her audience to the human side of the issue by interviewing Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach of the United States Air Force about how being outed as a gay man has cost him, and more than 13,000 other like him, his career. It is clear that her intended audience are the people of the US that are not currently convinced that this policy is poison for our military's success. She is very much against the policy and uses examples of how it is hurting our military by pointing out how many good Americans are losing their jobs due to a personal issue. "The U.S. military is kicking out men and women like this at a time when it's so desperate for new recruits that it's lowering admissions standards." This statement is aimed at showing us that the job crisis that millions of Americans are facing for unavoidable reasons regarding the economy are affecting the military personnel except that their is no reason that is should be. These people are passionate about protecting and serving our country only to be fired due to their sexual persuasion.
I agree wholeheartedly with McCarty that this policy could not be ended quickly enough. It is depriving our military of thousands of quality people to fill jobs while allowing less qualified, yet straight, people to fill them. This article is not simply a forum for her complaints however, because she points out that things are beginning to change with more attention being placed on the removal of this policy. With president Obama's promise to remove it we have hope, but like all issues regarding civil rights and tradition, it will likely not be an overnight change. At no point does McCarty become hostile or angry towards the people stopping this change from taking place, but she sets a tone of urgency for us to examine the policy and what it is causing us to lose as a nation. Hopefully, this type of commentary will help people who may not view this policy as a problem to rethink their opinions and the implications of such a rule.
Personally, I sincerely hope that with changes regarding sexual preference at the military level will soon come changes within the laws surrounding same sex marriage. As McCarty points out in her piece, changes in our laws having to do with civil rights issues have been gradual processes, so I don't think we can expect these things to change overnight. I do however agree with her in her closing statements, "Fehrenbach is a patient man. For the good of the country, let's not require patriots like him to be patient for a single day more."
A recent piece by Mary McCarty of Dayton Daily News which was published in the Austin American Statesman spoke to this issue and how immoral and hurtful to our military the current policy is. In her article, Patience of a Patriot, McCarty introduces her audience to the human side of the issue by interviewing Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach of the United States Air Force about how being outed as a gay man has cost him, and more than 13,000 other like him, his career. It is clear that her intended audience are the people of the US that are not currently convinced that this policy is poison for our military's success. She is very much against the policy and uses examples of how it is hurting our military by pointing out how many good Americans are losing their jobs due to a personal issue. "The U.S. military is kicking out men and women like this at a time when it's so desperate for new recruits that it's lowering admissions standards." This statement is aimed at showing us that the job crisis that millions of Americans are facing for unavoidable reasons regarding the economy are affecting the military personnel except that their is no reason that is should be. These people are passionate about protecting and serving our country only to be fired due to their sexual persuasion.
I agree wholeheartedly with McCarty that this policy could not be ended quickly enough. It is depriving our military of thousands of quality people to fill jobs while allowing less qualified, yet straight, people to fill them. This article is not simply a forum for her complaints however, because she points out that things are beginning to change with more attention being placed on the removal of this policy. With president Obama's promise to remove it we have hope, but like all issues regarding civil rights and tradition, it will likely not be an overnight change. At no point does McCarty become hostile or angry towards the people stopping this change from taking place, but she sets a tone of urgency for us to examine the policy and what it is causing us to lose as a nation. Hopefully, this type of commentary will help people who may not view this policy as a problem to rethink their opinions and the implications of such a rule.
Personally, I sincerely hope that with changes regarding sexual preference at the military level will soon come changes within the laws surrounding same sex marriage. As McCarty points out in her piece, changes in our laws having to do with civil rights issues have been gradual processes, so I don't think we can expect these things to change overnight. I do however agree with her in her closing statements, "Fehrenbach is a patient man. For the good of the country, let's not require patriots like him to be patient for a single day more."
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Congress Begins to Overhaul Consumer Protections
On July 16th, 2009 NPR reported a story about the first piece of Obama's plan to overhaul the current financial system through increasing consumer protections. Legislation drafts have already been sent to Congress that would change an important part of the plan. It would consolidate the financial protection agency for consumers and make the new rules regarding everything from credit cards and loans to mortgages.
Advocates of this change agree that it would put financial information in plain language that consumers could actually understand, which would prevent people from getting mortgages or loans that they actually do not need or are not right for them. The opposition however points to the fact that consumers have and always need to be saavy about the decisions they make. They think that it is their responsibility to research and find what they need to protect themselves.
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) views the plan as too far-reaching and almost invasive by the government. He sees it as the government telling consumers what to buy and limiting banks and financial institutions from having a wide range of options.
Discussions on the issue will continue and there are strong proponents on both sides. Whatever the outcome of this proposed legislation is will clearly affect all Americans' financial degree of financial protection. This is precisely why it is important for any consumer to know what they face when they enter a bank in search of a loan or apply for a mortgage. Most people will get some sort of loan in their lifetime which is why having a bit of knowledge about the rules and workings of our financial system and banks is extremely important.
Reading this article and those to come regarding this issue will be helpful for Americans to assess the changes being made in the financial system and how they directly and indirectly affect them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
