Rick Warren applauds Bush's HIV/AIDS plan

http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_applauds_bushs_hiv.html

I agree with Warren's opinion on Bush's initiative being a very good thing, especially since he is proposing double what the current aid is for the same amount of time, but from what I have learned in previous classes the statement that "No other president or world leader has ever done as much for global health as he" is simply not true. I am not even saying that United States foreign policy should necessarily put global health aid as one of its top priorities, but don't give Bush more credit than he deserves! Usually Presidents- Bush included- act out of self interest, not merely for being humanitarian. I think that Bush, as do many people, uses his religion as a scapegoat for his actions; however in this circumstance, if he wants to double his aid for AIDS, I am all for it regardless of what the reasons are since it's such a deadly epidemic right now.

Public health and religion: Aids, America, abstinence...

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article622736.ece
This article highly irritated me. A huge problem with Christianity is that so many "Christians" have taken it upon themselves to act righteous, impose their beliefs upon others, and judge those who are not on par with their beliefs- if you truly are a Christian, you should be able to look outside of your Christian bubble where everything is just and moral and perfect and realise that not everyone in the world can abide by those standards due to life circumstances. Even if they could, it is not other peoples' business to impose their beliefs onto others. Bush's aid overall is a very good thing- AIDS is horrifying and is killing people by the masses in Africa, but by making one third of all prevention money go to "abstinence only" programs it cuts into funding in much more detrimental areas. Bush's plan cuts out the use of prevention and instead focuses on abstinence and faithfulness to one partner- that's very nice sounding, but what is he thinking?!!! Is he really that ignorant? You cannot take your perfect Christian values into an AIDS-ridden, poverty-stricken continent and expect everyone to just stop having sex and become Christians. Telling the young prostitutes who depend on sex for their livelihoods to stop having it and then condoning them for doing so is not going to solve anything. Of course abstinence is a good thing to teach, but taking the focus away from prevention and wearing condoms is absurd during a crisis such as this. Bush needs to keep his religious beliefs out of his aid policies and look at the reality of the situation. It disgusts me that he is not doing that.

H.R. 1431: Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1431
I just thought this was interesting in the sense that this bill has been introduced but never passed twelve other times in Congress, and right now it has only been introduced (on March 9, 2007). There is a note that says introduced bills go first to committees before they go into debate, but the majority of introduced bills never make it out of the committee. After reading the other articles on this issue, and knowing how tedious of a process it is for bills to actually go into effect in the United States, I do not think that this bill will even make it to the next stage- being scheduled for debate- and if it does, it will not actually go into effect for some time. There is too much controversy on the topic of it and too many opinions on whether or not it is actually a good thing since people could use their religion as an excuse for many actions in the workplace. We will just have to wait and see if this time it makes past the committee...

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act

http://www.thejesusmyth.com/the-workplace-religious-freedom-act.htm

The situations that this article describe are definetely frightening and not okay. I agree with him entirely- this is not the America that I want to be living in either if people can use their religion as an excuse to not aid people in need. The workers of our country should have their religion respected, of course, but the bottom line of the situation is that people do have the freedom to believe what they want to in our country- but it should not be at the expense of the people who have different beliefs. As long as your religion is not infringing on the health and safety of others, then practice it as you wish, but when you are a police officer who is against abortion so does not protect an abortion clinic when it is in danger, you are not doing your job; if no one is forcing you to change your beliefs- and no one can do that in America- then you not use your religion as an excuse to not do your job.

ACLU Letter on the Harmful Effect of S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act

http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16224leg20040602.html

This letter that the ACLU wrote to a Senator makes very good points. When saying that "Unless amended, the bill would threaten important rights of religious minorities, racial minorities, women, gay men and lesbians, and persons seeking reproductive health care and mental health services" there really is nothing to argue against that. Cited in this article are issues such as a police officer requesting to refuse to protect an abortion clinic and an employee assistance counselor's request to refuse to counsel unmarried or gay or lesbian employees on relationship issues; these are the sort of things that should not be allowed and that would be under this provision. The ACLU makes the argument that Congress has the capability of changing previous religious freedom in the workplace without harming critical personal and civil rights, and that this is what should happen. When we put religion above the basic human rights that the United States gaurantees to all we have a problem.

The Adoration of Bush?

First of all, the opening of this is really disturbing. It is scary to think that camps like these actually exist- it's like a brainwashing camp. First of all, teaching children to worship Bush like that is a form of brainwashing, seeing as they don't even know anything about him except for the fact that he is Christian, and secondly the fact that they are teaching them to place Christianity above all else is not a good way to live, especially somewhere like in the United States where supposedly tolerance and freedom are two of the most highly valued principles. The radio host said everything perfectly- Rove and Bush owe these religious conservatives their elections, and they definetely have become an army of religious voters that have taken a hold on American politics... and definetely need to be stopped. They have taken a hold on politics and have become too influential, and in a country where separation of church and state is supposedly practiced as well as freedom of religion, it is ridiculous to have such a strong political element be evangelical Christian.

Disciples of Christ: Iraq War Inconsistent With Jesus' Teachings

http://nccinterfaith.blogspot.com/2007/07/christian-church-disciples-of-christ.html
This church says that it would like to "go on record as conscientiously opposing the war in Iraq as an action inconsistent with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ, and a violation of the traditional standards of just war" and that "leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, the Episcopal Church, and mainline Protestant churches in the United States have expressed opposition to the Iraq War and our global church and ecumenical partners have issued statements on the war declaring it to be immoral and contrary to the principles of "Just War." Basically, war goes aginst the principles of Christian pacificity in general, but if there has to be the War in Iraq goes against the qualifications of a just war to begin with- it was preventative and not a last resort. I am not religious, and I was not entirely against the war but only in the sense that I believe Suddam did need to be ousted- however, we went in for selfish purposes and at the wrong time and went against our only form of international law by doing so as well. That being said, I do agree as a whole what the Church is saying and can definetely understand why many churches would condemn it. In fact, I am surprised that more Christian churches are against Bush and his war than there are simply for the religious reasons cited in this article.

Role of Religion in US Foreign Policy

I agree with what the man in this clip says for many reasons. I think it is very, very important for politicians to be well informed in world religions in this day and age becuase globalization has brought everyone- politically as well- together in much closer proximity, and to be dealing with other nations that have various religions without being informed in them does not make for successful foreign policy. In order to have successful foreign policy, religion is a factor becuase religion is a huge part of peoples' lives and people are who make up government. Whether or not it guides or dominates peoples' lives it is definetely important when dealing with other nations to have an understanding of their religions becuase then an understanding of where the government is coming from- the primary example of this is, obviously, when dealing with Middle Eastern foreign policy, becuase their government is their religion. Understanding peoples' religions, whether it being for social or political reasons, can only be beneficial in my opinion.

Role of Religion in U.S. Foreign Policy Focus of New Council Initiative

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9771/role_of_religion_in_us_foreign_policy_focus_of_new_council_initiative.html

I am torn as to whether I think this initiative-the Religion and Foreign Policy Initiative launched by the Council- is a good or a bad thing. It is a good thing becuase regardless of whether or not I agree with religion being such a huge part of politics, it is, so it is probably a good thing that there is now something that allows religious and congregational leaders to connect and serve as a resource for since they are "increasingly important to the national foreign policy debate." That being said, the other side is that since I do not agree with the fact that religion is such a huge part of politics in America, I think this might just be encouraging the influence of it in American politics since now “the Council is well positioned to help its members and the public gain a deeper understanding of the issues at the intersection of religion and U.S. foreign policy.” Overall, it is probably a good thing since the fact of the matter is religion is continually gaining more influence in domestic and foreign policy, so we might as well make the best of it.

Scholar warns against mixing religion and foreign policy

http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/05-02/religion.asp
Scholar Gary Lease states in this article, "When you start making foreign policy based on religion, and particularly when it’s fueled by religion based on absolute beliefs, you get some horrific results." He cites Pope Pius XII as an example; during World War II Pius XII and the Roman church was accused of not doing enough to help the Jewish people in Europe during Hitler's reign, the Vatican's foreign policy in Palestine by leaning on the side of Christian Arabs, and in Iraq- shown in the battle between good and evil (Saddam Hussein). In all of these circumstances, Lease argues that "religion tells you that you are primarily responsible for those who believe what you do...for those who don't, it's often tough luck for them- they're left on the margins." He also believes that in nearly all foreign policy decisions based off of religious principle, the results have been disastrous. I agree with an understand what Lease is saying, but sometimes- such as the examples with the Vatican- I think that it is too difficult to separate religion from foreign policy; I think this is the case with the Muslim Middle East as well.

A Christian Viewpoint of War: Can Christian Beliefs and War Be Justified?

http://www.mobap.edu/student/collegian/mt/000183.asp

I actually think that this person has very interesting points to back up his argument. He says that many Christians point to the Ten Commandments' rule of "Thou shalt not kill" for not justifying war, but he points out that the Hewbrew word that s translated "kill" in Exodus actually means "murder," and that there is a huge difference between cold-blooded murder and the killing of people on a battle front, which, although it is still horribly sad, I agree that there is definetely not a comparison between a soldier and a murderer. Lewis, a famous Christian author, "admonishes that in war “'We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy it.'”[1] In other words, we must not relish the death of our adversaries in wartime, even if the war is determined to be just by Christian standards." Although I am not exactly a Christian, I think that this principle can be followed by anyone- if a war is evaluated to be just, it does not necessarily mean that people should relish in it, and I do not think that many people do regardless of them supporting it or not. The closing statement that this person finishes with I do not agree with, because, again, it is from a Christian standpoint and I believe in the separation of church and state, but that being said overall her arguments were worthy of attention.

Baptists warn environmental politics could divide evangelicals

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/071506dnrelgreenbaps.46a6f93.html

I know that I am not a Christian, nor a devout one at that, so I probably do not understand how seriously the word of God is taken in the lives of Christians. To devout ones, issues such as abortion and gay marriage probably are far more worthy of attention than issues such as the environment, but I just do not understand this. How can you let differences in issues that clearly are all important in some way to people of your same faith jeapardize the strength of your faith? Why does everyone have to agree that the two issues they want to be unified on- abortion and gay marriage- must come before everything else? Who cares if some Christians view environmental problems more heavily above the issues of abortion and gay marriage- why is that so important, why does it cause such division? And even if there is division- why does it matter? Shouldn't the peoples' faith unite them above differences on issues that clearly are all important matters to all of them? The whole thing just seems silly to me, and I do not know why people cause issues over things that are not issues when there are so many things in this world that truly cause division and dissent among people.

Hurricanes spawn talk of ties between religion, environment

http://www.religionlink.org/tip_050923.php
Stewardship of the Earth is of major importance in nearly every religion, and as the environment increasingly becomes something of concern, religions of all different kinds- Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Catholic- have formed environmentally-focused groups centered on how to change things in the world so that we can be good stewards of the Earth. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita helped facilitate the ties become religion and the environment; although these hurricanes were catastrophic at least people started realising that the environment was important to focus on in our world today. I think that it is incredible that so many religions are forming councils or groups to help fight against environmental dangers that the world is experiencing despite vast differences among the faiths- it makes it seem as though people are people first above their religions (although depending on your level of devoutness that may not be true).

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage

I very much understand where Ron Paul is coming from in his belief on the issue of gay marriage, and I actually do think sometimes that it would be better to leave it up to the states. I agree with him that it would be unnecessary to make an amendment to the constitution, and I actually think it would be completely hypocritical to what the United States stands for- freedom and equality for all does not exactly go with an amendment to the constitution that would ban equality for certain people but not for others. Ron Paul is more a libertarian, so of course he would be more for state rights than federal and not want to issue an amendment unless it were for economic purposes, as he says- and I think he would run wanting even less government influencing everything if it were not for the fact that a libertarian would not win. I do like his response here, and he brings up a good point about marriage; everyone already knows what it is and it does not need to be redefined; we do not need to create an amendment banning same sex marriage. As for leaving it up to the states, I'm not sure what I think- I'm usually all for state rights, but by allowing them this freedom it's taking away freedom from people in some states... I'm not sure what I think about that.

Gay Marriage: Why Not?

http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=762

Falwell is quoted in this article as saying, "Make no mistake. These deviants seek no less than total control and influence in society, politics, our schools and in our exercise of free speech and religious freedom." This struck me as entirely ridiculous, becuase regardless of your religious viewpoints, how can you assume this? If you disagree with gay marriage, okay; just don't take it to extreme levels because the bottom line is is that these people just want the same rights that heterosexuals do- I don't think the motive is to infiltrate society. I agree with this article in its reasoning as to why people are really scared- that the homosexual lifestyle goes against the "normal" sociological trend of man and women getting married and procreating- for whatever reason, I think that people are just scared of what is not normal to them. This goes for nearly every aspect of life; people like regularity and when your faith on top of it says that it is wrong then of course people just on the bandwagon. I am not necessarily an advocate for gay marriage, but I also do not see what the big deal is; I wish people would look outside the box more and realize that most things in life are not worth worrying about and this is one of them. Gay marriage will not be harming straight ones.

The Candidates on Gay Marriage

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Gay_Marriage
Obama and Clinton both have opposed a federal amendment banning gay marriage; Giuliani and McCain did as well- it is interesting that nearly all of the candidates have opposed this ban, but have not actually supported gay marriage. Clearly, they realize that it would be wrong to amend the constitution to outlaw it, so they must have reasons as to why they did that- some of the candidates, such as Obama, for example, seem somewhat torn as to whether they are even against it. Why not just be okay with it? I do not understand why this has turned into such a huge deal... is it going to effect other peoples' lives if homosexuals want to get married? Most of the candidates do not support this, but support this, have changed their mind about that... why is it do difficult to be open to the idea and just go for something? I feel as though you should be strong enough in what you believe to be one way or another if you are a presidential candidate, but I suppose this issue is too controversial for them to be able to just pick a side.

Can the religious left sway the '08 race?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0606/p01s02-uspo.html?page=1
The Christian Left group Sojourners made an important political step by sponsoring a forum, inviting the top six presidential candidates of both parties, and openly discussing religious objectives. This was an intelligent move in the sense that now the Democratic candidates have openly discussed their faith, and for the American people that are more in the middle to see the candidates' willingness to discuss it is an important political move on their part. Also, it will be interesting to see what happens becuase of the Right not having one candidate to support- some Christians of the Right may end up voting for one of Left, and people who are not staunchly one way or the other but more in the middle may end up being swayed by the talk of the Left now and vote Democratically. One thing that was mentioned was that they still do not have the political power that the Right has, but I do not think that in this election it will make a difference simply becuase the Right hasn't sided with one candidate- in order to have true power they would have to galvanize behind a Republican candidate.

The Progressive Christian

http://www.tcnj.edu/~weinste3/whatischristianleft.htm
I think that the Christian Left will probably never be unified like the Christian Right is, but that does not mean that they could not influence voting as the Right does- just not necessarily as one huge voting block. I think that becuase the Left allows for more diversity in the beliefs and what they stand for that there is more diversity in what candidate might be the best option for them, and thus I do not think that there will be a time when they necessarily will band together under one candidate. I have a lot of respect for the Left in that they are religious but still want the separation of religion and the state- they still want religion to be a part of public life, but if they are for this separation then it can't be a huge part of it. I also have a huge respect for the fact that they can disagree on something like abortion- not because I am all for it in any way, but because they do not all unanimously have one belief on the issue but actually think for themselves on what they think about it; it is cool in a way that they are so varied in their beliefs on the subject. In terms of their acceptance of GLBT communities, I think that shows more of the love and compassion that Christians are supposed to have than does the Right's staunch opposition to it.

Religious Right's Tough Call

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1022/p01s02-uspo.html
The Religious Right is having a tough time this year deciding on what 2008 Presidential candidate they should back- the good news is that most GOP candidates show support for the two major issues in the movement, opposition to abortion rights and support for traditional marriage. The bad news, as they put it, is that the leading Republican in the polls, Rudy Giuliani, is not behind either of those issues- Giuliani supports abortion rights, and although he does not want to legalize same-sex marriage he supports rights for same-sex couples. "With the next president likely to replace two or more Supreme Court justices, including some who support abortion rights, the opportunity of a generation to overturn the nationwide right to abortion, established in Roe v. Wade, could be lost." This is the main issue of this election, and a dilemma is forming among Evangelical Christians- if they do not vote for Giuliani, that would give more votes to Clinton, and it would be worse for them if Clinton won than Giuliani. Maybe if Evangelical Christians looked at other issues besides these couple social ones they would find other reasons to vote for a Presidential candidate. Maybe the focus should be taken away from abortion and gay marriage and realise that there are other things our nation has to worry about as well.

The Christian Right on the '08 Election

The Christian Right, according to this report, is the sole largest voting block, and within the Republican Party makes up about one third of it's voters. In the upcoming election, this could provide for some real instability, becuase the Christian Right have not aligned themselves with one particular candidate. Giuliani is not on par with their social desires, primarily by not being pro-life, and he is the front-runner of the Republican party as of now- however, even if the Christian Right ends up not aligning themselves with a single candidate, Giuliani will still probably end up with half of the third of votes from the conservative Christians becuase he is still on par with them on other issues -such as immigration and terrorism- and if he does not win, someone worse could. I personally think from everything I have heard that they will not actually align themselves with one candidate, but in the end the majority of them will vote for Giuliani, becuase as of now it is looking to be between Giuliani and Clinton, and if Giuliani does not get their votes Clinton will most likely win and she would be worse for their causes than Giuliani would be. Personally, I respect Giuliani for standing by what he believes, becuase he knew what he was risking by being pro-choice in terms of his support from the Christian Right and he did it anyway.

Ann Coulter Links Barack Obama To Terrorism On Fox News

"Faith stopped being used to bring us together, faith got used to bring us apart... faith got hijacked" stated Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Obama goes on to say that the Christian Right has exploited what divides the American people; it has portrayed the Democrats as disliking their values and disrespecting their church while at the same time suggesting that the rest of nation- the "religious" peoples- only care about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, intelligent design, etc; he basically accuses the Christian Right if hijacking religion from the Democrats. I actually think that this is a perfect way of describing what is going on in the country. Not all Democrats are not religious, and not all Republicans are religious- and those who are generally care about more issues than what the Christian Right focuses on. He implies that the Christian Right imposes its agenda on the American people and suggests that anyone who disagrees is immoral... from what I have learned in this class about the Christian Right, I would have to agree with Obama. As for Ann Coulter, this lady is ridiculous- she basically implies that Democrats are "Godless," that anyone who is not Conservative should not speak in a church, and that someone with a name such as Obama Hussein should not use "religion" and "hijack" in the same discussion... she is completely narrow minded and absurd, and actually had the nerve to say that the Right's way of going about religion is the correct way. Someone needs to put this lady in her place.

"In God We Trust" law stirs controversy

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/26/in.god.trust/index.html
This article made me think about the issue seriously... if there were posters saying "In God We Trust" in every school classroom, auditorium, or cafeteria that I entered, I probably would not think twice of it simply becuase it is our nation's motto and I do think that it is kind of ridiculous that people make such a big deal about it. However, just becuase it is our nation's motto does not mean that it has to be advertised- I fully agree with and believe in the separation of church and state, and I do not think it is necessary to throw something that is clearly religiously-based into students' faces in every single classroom, cafeteria, or auditorium they walk into. "'In God We Trust' is clearly an endorsement of religion and the First Amendment forbids that," said Mississippi American Civil Liberties Union board member Jane Hicks, and I agree with her- however, the argument that it is our nation's motto is a good one in response to that. Honestly, as long as nothing religious is being taught to students I am not as passionate about it, but I do understand why this would anger some people and i mostly just do not understand why it would be done to begin with.

Spending Godless Money

http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/godlessmoney.html
Although I find this kind of unnecessary, if people are truly bothered by the term "In God We Trust" being on our currency, then by all means cross it out. I think it is an interesting way to be outspoken about what you want changed, and it certainly gets around the population, but I do not think that it will make any change at all- not in the government, not with the people who obtain the bills. In fact, if I have gotten one of these bills I honestly have no idea becuase I generally just hand my bill over to the cashier without examining it; however, if I ever do get one, I think all that would cross my mind would be, "Oh, I read about this in that article for my blog assignment." I do not even know what I believe religiously- I would not consider myself an atheist yet, but if end up an atheist, I hope I would not be offended by having "In God We Trust" on my bills. Frankly, I don't really care, and as for the United States' 30 million atheist citizens- it is unfortunate for them that our country has adopted this, and maybe someday it will change, but I guess I just don't see why it is worth making a big deal about. "In the early 1990s, the Freedom From Religion Committee filed a lawsuit to remove "In God We Trust" from currency and as our national motto, but their case was dismissed by a federal judge on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase. If "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase, what is it? Of course the judge did not attempt to justify his absurd claim." I do agree with this part of the article, becuase "God" is without a doubt a religious claim, but I just do not see how spending "Godless money" is going to change anything.

'In God We Trust' Marks 50th Anniversary Amid Controversy

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071002/29535_%27In_God_We_Trust%27_Marks_50th_Anniversary_Amid_Controversy.htm
It is interesting to learn that the phrase "In God We Trust" was commissioned during the Civil War and appeared on coins during the Cold War when the threat of communism was at its peak. It makes sense that at times at these our nation might want to "strengthen" its people, but it does go against the 1st Amendment- the argument that our nation was founded under Christianity used to be what I turned to when wondering why the phrase existed, but if it didn't appear until the mid 1800's then I guess I do understand why people might make a big deal about it. I personally am not offended by this phrase, but I can see why it would offend some people, and if I ever had the opportunity to vote on whether or not to keep the phrase as our motto and keep it on our currency then I suppose I would vote against it. Until then, however, I do not really care, and if people do not like it, maybe they should move, because I do not see it changing anytime soon- if ever.

Polygamist Warren Steed Jeff

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/29/jeffs.arrest/index.html

This guy is sick, and it's about time they caught him- Warren Jeff was the leader of an extreme Mormon polygamist sect and has been one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives for "flight to avoid prosecution in Utah and Arizona, sexual conduct with a minor, and conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor and rape as an accomplice." The Mormon Church calls him a religious zealot and dangerous extremist and clais to have no ties with the FLDS- Jeffs was the leader of this extreme sect, the FLDS, for four years; during those four years hundreds of marriages involving girls as young as thirteen were made, young men were sent away to avoid competition for brides, older men were cast out, and wives and children were reassigned by Jeffs to new husbands and fathers- the entire thing is disgusting. All I can think is that the Mormon Church must be mortified by being associated with such a person and sect even though it is not there doing at all; I also do not understand how polygamy is even allowed still- the "marriages" must not be legal ones. This case is very interesting becuase it is so strange... I intend on following it and seeing what his sentence ends up being.

Death Penalty

http://pewforum.org/death-penalty/
Why there is such dissension among religious people on the topic of capital punishment is very understandable, becuase there are many different ways you look at it and many different ways to support both sides of the issue religiously. It says here that more white Protestans (80%) than white Catholics (66%) favor capital punishment for adults, but there is no gap when it comes to minors- 38% of white Protestants and 39% of white Catholics are in favor of it for minors. I don't really understand why this is... obviously I understand why the percentages would go down for minors, but in terms of adults, I do not understand why less Catholics than Protestants are in favor of it. Catholics tend to be more "traditional," and maybe when looking at Bible passages with traditional meaning they find more reasons to be against it? I just thought it was interesting that there was such a gap between the two sects of Christianity becuase the core values in both are the same as far as I know.

The Candidates on the Death Penalty

http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Death_Penalty
I thought it was interesting that of all presidential candidates, only two people opposed the death penalty. One person who opposed it was Ron Paul. It says here that Ron Paul praised the late Pope John Paul II for being an "eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty." Paul is Protestant, but every other candidate is religious as well, and the only other one who is against it for moral reasons is Dennis Kucinich, who is Roman Catholic. Some, such as Edwards and Dodds, seem hesitant about it, but overall- of all the religious presidential candidates- only two are against it, and neither one of them will most likely win the election. It's just interesting becuase the line between if it is right or wrong does not seem very thin here, yet in public society among religious peoples there are very passionate disagreements among people on the subject.

Religious Organizing Against the Death Penalty

http://www.deathpenaltyreligious.org/
The Religious Organizing Against the Death Penalty Project was organized in an attempt to bring religious bodies together to fight against the death penalty. This statement says that more and more nations are abolishing the death penalty, but somehow the United States, known for its human rights awknowledgements, has 3,500 people sitting on death row; the statement says that "Many suffer from mental illness or mental retardation. A disproportionate number are people of color. And some are innocent of the crimes for which they have been condemned to die." Although I understand the arguments against the death penalty, the argument that some of the people are innocent does does fly by me- in our court system I find it very difficult to believe that many people at all who are sentenced to the death penalty are in fact innocent, and that is not a reason to abolish it altogether. Also, maybe I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the people who are mentally ill are put into mental wards...? I am not sure where I stand on capital punishment yet, but the religious arguments do not seem strong enough for me to sway me one way or another; the one thing that gets me is that life in prison seems worse to me than death. However, I do not understand the whole compassion side of the argument becuase the people on death row do not deserve compassion in my opinion- they have commited atrocious crimes and do not deserve peoples' sympathy.

Capital Punishment: Retribution or Justice

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week437/cover.html

Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the deaths of 168 people and for wounding hundreds more when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building; it was the worst act of domestic terrorism in United States history. He was put to death in 2001 through lethal injection, but before he was sentenced to the death penalty many religious peoples and organizations- 65, to be exact- "asked President Bush not to execute McVeigh and to impose a moratorium on all Federal executions," saying that the suffering of the victims' families cannot be healed through the vengeance of the death penalty. This article shows correspondent Tim O'Brien discussing the death penalty with people of faith coming from two different perspectives- one believing that McVeigh was rightfully executed, and the other that capital punishment is not the right way to punish him. The arguments are as they always seem to be: that by allowing him to live we are saying his life is worthy of living, by punishing him by death we are demeaning ourselves and not punishing in a just way. I do not know what I agree with more, but if I were to solely look at the different reverends' perspectives I would have to say that I understand where Reverend Alexander is coming from the most.

The Death Penalty- Basic Reasons: pro and anti

http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm
I found this website to be particularly interesting because it actually gave reasons behind why some religious people are against the death penalty and some are for it. In terms of pro-death penalty, the Bible cites many reasons when the death penalty is necessary; most of which are not applied in today's society. Even so, "Bible passages are still used to promote the retention of capital punishment for murderers" and "some advocate that homosexuals also be executed." The Bible should have nothing to do with capital punishment, and one problem that I really have with religion is that people do not recognize that society changes- homosexuality may not have been accepted at the time the Bible was written, but society has changed and become far more tolerant than it ever was at that time, and people should be able to recognize the change that has occurred in society. There are many other religious reasons for the death penalty, but that is the one that struck me as most interesting. In terms of anti-capital punishment, the one I found most interesting said almost exactly what I believe without any religious backing in it- that many Christians feel as though they are not chained to the rules of the Hebrew scriptures anymore since society has changed and become far more tolerant. I personally do not even know which side I am on- I think that a lifetime spent in jail is a far worse punishment than the death penalty, but in terms of the ethics behind it, I am not sure.

Mike Huckabee and Bill O'Reilly on Creation and Evolution

I respect Huckabee for making it clear that he does not believe it is his place to say who will make it to heaven and who won't; I also also respect him for saying that even though he does not believe in evolution it's not his place to impose his beliefs on others. However, he says that "that's the beauty of America" when stating that people are free to believe what they want- I think this is ironic, becuase he also says that the American people should know about his faith and what he believes in; clearly what believe religiously does matter. Personally, I find Huckabee to be somewhat irritating in this clip becuase he gets kind of annoyed while defending himself; if he came off more calm I think he would have had a stronger effect on the listeners. In terms of prayer in the classroom, having an allotted time for prayer seems just bizarre to me and contradictory to the entire idea behind separation of state and religion, but it doesn't sound like he wants to bring prayer back into the classroom or even grant a time for prayer. Becuase I very much believe in evolution, it just seems scary to me that a potential President of our country thinks that "we are not descendants of apes-" which, by the way, is a ignorant way of describing the evolutionary process- but the bottom line is that a vast number of people agree with him, and in many ways this could end up helping him. I just wish that religion did not play such a significant role in American politics...or that it just didn't play a role at all.

The Closet Athiest

http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/evolutionclassroom.htm

I have not figured out exactly what I believe religiously at this time in my life, but I have to say that I fully agree with the statements this writer makes (the "Closet Atheist"). When Pat Buchanan sais that parents have a right to insist that Godless evolution not be taught to their children, or that their children "not be indoctrinated in it," the Closet Atheist responds with, "The irony that Pat Buchanan is concerned about children being indoctrinated is amusing. If schools are not going to indoctrinate children in science, perhaps they should also stop indoctrinating children in reading and math." Well said- I have nothing else to add to that comment.

When the Kansas Board of Education lost it's Christian majority in the November 2005 elections, evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and plate tectonics were all re-introduced into the state's science curriculum after having been removed from standardized tests a year and half earlier. First of all, how did these topics get removed to begin with? Do the American people want the next generation of children to be ignorant of scientific evidence about the world? We are already considered ignorant; when we don't want to teach our children science becuase it contradicts faith something is wrong. Faith is exactly that- faith. Religion has no true solid foundation; people choose to believe in it out of faith. How do you teach a curriculum based off of faith? You can't. As the Closet Atheist says, "It is no wonder that creationists fight evolution so aggressively. It is much more appealing (and easy) to believe that we are made in the image of a God. But as the saying goes: The truth hurts."

Religious Doctrine in the Science Classroom

http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/create/creationism5.asp

I was under the impression that the separation of church and state was enforced in the United States, but the more articles I read like this one the more disgusted (not to be harsh) I become that religion plays such a huge role in educational decisions. In Dover, PA, the school district became the first in the nation to allow for discussion of intelligent design in the science room. This was overturned, but in 2004, the school district's board of education adopted a revision to the highschool biology curriculum stating that “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design.” The November 2005 Kansas Board of Education decision "approved biology standards that characterized evolution as a flawed scientific theory and redefined science to include supernatural explanations, such as intelligent design, rather than natural explanations for physical evidence." In 1999, the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee said "that publishers doing business with the state be required to place a disclaimer in all biology books" stating that evolution is “a controversial theory which some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans.” It also says that the evolutionary theory is an “unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things.” The fact that these actually go into effect- that these concerns are actually awknowledged and put into law- really makes me wonder about people. Are people really so ignorant and close-minded that they think their religious beliefs are comparable to scientific evidence and should be taught to everyone regardless of differing religious and cultural backgrounds? It seems completely ridiculous to me, but I suppose as long as evolution is taught the American educational system has not completely strayed from its core values.

Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

This poll, done by CBS News, found that the vast majority of Americans believe in creationism- or if not creationism, that God was involved in the process- compared to the minority 13% percent who believe that God was not involved at all. Although this is a poll and there is room for chance error, from what we learned in class the majority of Americans believe in God, and for most of those Americans they would most likely fall in the 87% who believe that in some way He was responsible for modern man. 67% of Bush voters believe that God created humans in their current form compared to the 47% of Kerry voters... 71% of Americans think that creationism should be included in school curriculum alongside evolution, and 71% of Bush voters and 56% of Kerry voters thought that as well. 60% of Evangelical Christians think that creationism should replace evolution altogether. These statistics show a couple things- one, that people who voted for Bush tended to be more religious than those who voted for Kerry; which is not surprising knowing that Bush was very forward about his religion during his campaign and Kerry was more subdued about it (not to mention that Bush was Evangelical). Secondly, these statistics show how Christianity has a huge influence on the American people and politics in general. I personally find these statistics frightening- it is truly scary that so many people believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution or replaced altogether becuase creationism is not based on factual scientific evidence. What people want, then, is faith-based religious curriculum- the idea completely goes against the separation of church and state and what this country is supposedly so proud of- the freedom of religion. Religious books are not textbooks.

School Science Debate Has Evolved

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2004-11-28-schools-evolution_x.htm

"Part of the job of the public school system is to make professional judgments about what children ought to learn," says Jack Krebs, a teacher and vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science. "It doesn't make any sense to give equal time to all these other ideas that are vastly unsupported. It's misleading to kids." I completely agree with this statement. It is ridiculous to me that the nation is increasingly asking for more religion in education... but education is supposed to be based off of FACTS, right? I have no problem whatsoever with people believing in what they want to believe in as long as it is not being imposed upon others, but this is a belief system and when it is taught in the classroom it is doing just that. I understand that Christians believe that Creationism is a fact- but there is no scientific evidence to base it off of, and how do you teach a theory in a classroom where the only evidence to support it comes from religious books? This article says that in western Wisconsin a particular school district requires that alternative theories of evolution be taught, and in Ohio the state school board passed a measure encouraging the teaching of evolution and intelligent design. In 1987 the Supreme Court found that "teaching creationism in public schools violates the constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state." It seems to me that this is increasingly being ignored... believe what you want to, but to me, religion- of any kind- has no place in public education at all.

Court Splits Abortion and Fetus Murder

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/us/23texas.html

I think that this case presents the ethical issue of abortions in a very real-life scenario: why is it okay for a fetus to be "murdered" if the women chose for it be, but not okay for a fetus to be murdered if someone killed the mother (and, therefore, obviously the fetus)? In Texas, abortions are legal, but if a pregnant women is murdered during any stage of her pregnancy the person is charged with both the fetus' and the mothers' murders. I think this is kind of a double standard- it's difficult becuase I want to say that Terence Lawrence should definetely be charged with two murders, but why then is it ok for a women to get an abortion just becuase she chose to? I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal, but it does make me question why I believe that, becuase the bottom line is that although a fetus is not living yet, it has the potential to live, and how is it not considered murder if you purposefully prevent a life from living? This article made me look at the issue from a different angle and caused me to realise the hypocrisy of the issue- the Texas court said that the abortion precedent was based on the premise that a women wants the procedure, but in not-so-nice-of-words that's basically saying that if a women chooses to kill the fetus then it's okay becuase she wanted to, but since she didn't ask for someone to murder her and therefore the child then it's not okay. Okay... so basically the point here is that as long as you ask for it it's okay? It just seems very ironic to me.

Planned Parenthood

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion-4260.htm

I found this description of abortion on the Planned Parenthood website very interesting because they portray abortion as if it were just another common medical procedure as if there were no ethical issues involved at all. Just the other day I was listening to a couple members of my family disagree on this issue exactly- one was saying that Planned Parenthood advertises abortion and portrays it as a positive solution to pregnancy, and the other was saying that it absolutely does not not do that, it simply offers abortions if someone so chooses to have one. I was agreeing with the opinion of the latter until I read this- although it does not straight out advertise abortions, it does portray them positively; although it is good that they make a point of the procedure being safe I do not think it necessary to elaborate on the history of it being a "common" procedure, not to mention portraying the outcome of Roe vs. Wade as being this great victory by concluding the paragraph with "today, abortion is legal nationwide and is one of the safest of all available medical procedures." The part that shocked me the most, however, was the last sentence- informing readers on where to find "information about the thousands of fake clinics that have been set up to frighten women away from choosing abortion." Frighten women away? This is almost comical; women should be frightened- they should be fully informed and aware of the decision they make and it shouldn't be portrayed as having them be "frightened away." It is ridiculous that they are portraying such an enormous decision that could have potentially enormous emotional consequences so nonchalantly.

Rudy Firmly Pro-Abortion

Although I actually do agree with Giuliani's stance on this issue, I think he comes off somewhat unstable- I agree in the sense that I too personally disagree with it, but I do not think that it is the government's place to impose laws on something that is deeply personal- the government already has too much of a say on what people can and cannot do, and something like abortion is a huge issue for the government to intervene in and outlaw altogether. However, Giuliani says that he would be in favor of supporting alternatives to abortion if there were any- such as adoption- but what does that mean? I am very much in favor of adoption as well, but to someone listening to that he may come off as a person ashamed of being pro-choice- a "soft" pro-choicer who wants to appeal to the other side of the issue as well. Although I too could be described as a "soft" pro-choicer, if I were in politics I would not say something such as being supportive of alternatives simply because the only legit alternative is adoption; everyone already knows and is aware of the option of adoption. That being said, I do think that his stance will appeal to many people, and I definitely do agree on there being restrictions on abortion like he says.

Abortion Controversy

http://www.abortioninfo.org/

This is a very interesting site becuase it shows the issue from both sides. It seems to be pretty clear that the writer's personal belief is abortion is wrong becuase she tends to show a bias towards the anti-abortion arguments, but the other side is presented and awknowledged; coming from a non-religious perspective it is sort of irritating to me that the anti-abortion viewpoints' main defense is "God." I am not religious, and although I do not think that abortion should be made illegal I personally would never get one; in defense to most of the questions she asks from the pro-abortion stance I would have answered with presenting alternatives such as adoption- which I think is underrated, becuase in order to adopt a family must be completely qualified and is truly in want of a child. Also, how about presenting abortion as a weak and pathetic way to deal with the choices you made? The one thing this site does say that I found interesting is that if abortion is not murder, then what is it? These are the sort of things that I think the issue should be presented as; not everything moral has to be linked to religion and the pro-life side should think of alternative ways to defend their position rather than simply pointing to God. If you choose to have sex then you have to be prepared for the consequences, period. It is not all fun and games. That is really what the issue should be.

Doctors and Med Students

http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Prolife/Abortionist_Info/



This site offers an interesting topic in relation to abortions- I personally had never even thought about abortionists outside the movie The Cider House Rules. It is interesting and meaningful that even people within the medical profession look down upon abortionists in the sense that clearly even people who describe themselves as pro-life do not look upon abortions lightly or positively. The fact that people within the medical profession are pushed to the abortionist field as a last resort also says something about the negative viewpoint of abortions. I don't even know what the solution to this is, becuase although I think abortions are horrible, I don't think they should be made illegal; where then is the solution to having more highly trained abortionists? Just tying that makes me cringe- it is very understandable why such a negative stigma is placed upon them becuase regardless of your stance on the issue when it comes down to it abortionists are preventing a life from being born, and that is certainly something that understandably not many people want to have anything to do with.