Swear I'm working after this.
Ok. Real quick. I have to get this out.
COLLEGE IS MAKING ME MORE LIBERAL, AND I HATE IT.
I can't stand it. I've come to the conclusion that all other liberals I've met just can't articulate their views very well, because I don't know if they realize it, but on a lot of the controversial issues we have going on today, they have something that I covet very very much: Logic.
We are doing this controversial issue presentations, on all of them, for 2 hours a piece in my Democracy and Education class. (Class is 3 hours, it works). My Professor, a liberal British dude, has quashed almost all of my arguments and rearranged the way I've been thinking about things on almost all of them, and there's only been three. He gets to rip me apart next week on immigration.
Abortion: I once was of the mind that you should forbid abortion except in cases of rape/incest. Oh no, that doesn't work though, it's quite a hypocritical position to occupy. I thought it made SENSE, it was a logical compromise, but nope. Because, assuming that you are against abortion you believe that human life is sacred. But by making an except in the case of rape/incest, you are making an exception in the case of the sacredness of human life; you say which life is sacred and which is not based on how they were conceived; that isn't fair or just, and it makes the fairness and justice of standing for the sacredness of life in all other cases very cheap. I lose, and have to re-evaluate my position (just so you know, I'm well on my way to doing that, just framing the argument a different way and elaborating...less emphasis on the sacredness of life and more on...something else, I'm not going to reveal the details cause it's still a work in progress..yes I think about these things, yes it's what government majors do).
Separation of Church and State:
See if you think the below statement is unconstitutional:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students
to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution
is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be
tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no
evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested
explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of
Pandas and People, is available for students who might
be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to
keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of
the Origins of Life to individual students and their
families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction
focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency
on Standards-based assessments.
---
I would've been A-OK with that as a disclaimer in a Biology class before teaching Darwin's Theory of evolution. Apparently, so did a school in Dover Pennslyvania, but the Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
They use the Lemon Test ask what the disclaimer was "intended to convey" and "what it actually conveys to a 'reasoned observer'".
And of course, the Supreme Court has also decided that schools cannot endorse or bash any religion.
Ignoring the Lemon Test, my professor made a logical argument that says that guarenteed Intelligent Design endorses a religion...
To "teach" intelligent design means simply to argue that the world was intelligently designed by some "master-craftsman" (as the book Of Pandas and People puts it). This begs, what is this master-craftsman? You can't assign any adjectives, motives, or feelings to this without endorsing creationism, which the Supreme Court has ruled is NOT a science, and you certainly can't go into much detail without endorsing a religion.
What do you say to that? It's logically correct.
---
Gay Marriage
I sStill don't think he refuted the (I hate this title) "slippery slope" argument, but he did say that logically saying that if weare headed for a "slsippery slope" of decline means that here and now we are at the pinical (sp) of our society NOW and this direction would inevitably lead to decay.
But, this phenomenon wasn't unheard of back when, oh I don't know, we were letting differnt races marry, which for a long time were not recognized marriages in the US. So he says, you can view it as a slippery slope, or you can view it as progress. My main concern is that the same argument the gay community is making can be made by any group of people. I did rebuke the class for wasting time with religious arguments and the definition of marriage...you can make this argument very secular and have a credible point when arguing to an athiest...the issue isn't whether it is A REAL TRUE MARRIAGE it is whether we are depriving a minority of their Constitutional rights of equal treatment and equal protection under the law. The question for me still is, can't any minority make that argument?
I didn't give him any ground on marriage though. He insists that the government and society should recognize the imperfections in people and grant divorices liberally tto anyone that wants one (as they do now). Still, I think that more responsibility should be put on people who are engaged to be married. You shouldn't go "oops, this isn't what I wanted" after you've said your vows. Get to know someone, be SURE that this is what you want. Is that such a hard thing to ask? You shouldn't try your lot at everyone knowing the state will bail you out, that's what dating is for, and you don't need a fancy form for that either.
----
ON a final note, at Mason there were some Christians "evangelising" (sp) outside in the free speech area, yelling (literally, in a preacher kind of fashion) that gays were going to hell and that allah is a false god. Needless to say, within minutes the carvan of middle easterners and the entire Gay-Straight Alliance club rolled up, formed a mob and started yelling and screaming at them. I actually sat down and talked to one of the guys...they are really believers in what the Biblesays, and they based their conclusions on biblical passages. They weren't yelling back at the people, they sat their and took it, not once did they personally insult anyone...it was the "offended" parties that came off looking stupid. But yeah, sorry, I was talking to one of the guys who was in the middle of a circle of people calmly taking questions and debating people, again, very calmly, on their questions and concerns. I heard him talk about marriage and I agreed with him on it (it was basically my position above).
I felt bad for them, I really felt like yelling at the people yelling and saying if you really want to make a statement, just walk on by and don't listen to them. First of all, if you're Muslim, you believe that all us non-muslims are going to hell anyway, you're just not saying it. And if your gay, who cares if someone tells you you are going to hell? Why believe them? If God truly loves you, then it shouldn't matter what these people say. And to those evangelists that were there, they have my respect...they can speak and argue in a way that I envy.
Damn, I'm done.
-paul
PS: Longest...entry...ever.
COLLEGE IS MAKING ME MORE LIBERAL, AND I HATE IT.
I can't stand it. I've come to the conclusion that all other liberals I've met just can't articulate their views very well, because I don't know if they realize it, but on a lot of the controversial issues we have going on today, they have something that I covet very very much: Logic.
We are doing this controversial issue presentations, on all of them, for 2 hours a piece in my Democracy and Education class. (Class is 3 hours, it works). My Professor, a liberal British dude, has quashed almost all of my arguments and rearranged the way I've been thinking about things on almost all of them, and there's only been three. He gets to rip me apart next week on immigration.
Abortion: I once was of the mind that you should forbid abortion except in cases of rape/incest. Oh no, that doesn't work though, it's quite a hypocritical position to occupy. I thought it made SENSE, it was a logical compromise, but nope. Because, assuming that you are against abortion you believe that human life is sacred. But by making an except in the case of rape/incest, you are making an exception in the case of the sacredness of human life; you say which life is sacred and which is not based on how they were conceived; that isn't fair or just, and it makes the fairness and justice of standing for the sacredness of life in all other cases very cheap. I lose, and have to re-evaluate my position (just so you know, I'm well on my way to doing that, just framing the argument a different way and elaborating...less emphasis on the sacredness of life and more on...something else, I'm not going to reveal the details cause it's still a work in progress..yes I think about these things, yes it's what government majors do).
Separation of Church and State:
See if you think the below statement is unconstitutional:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students
to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution
is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be
tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no
evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested
explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life
that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of
Pandas and People, is available for students who might
be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to
keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of
the Origins of Life to individual students and their
families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction
focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency
on Standards-based assessments.
---
I would've been A-OK with that as a disclaimer in a Biology class before teaching Darwin's Theory of evolution. Apparently, so did a school in Dover Pennslyvania, but the Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
They use the Lemon Test ask what the disclaimer was "intended to convey" and "what it actually conveys to a 'reasoned observer'".
And of course, the Supreme Court has also decided that schools cannot endorse or bash any religion.
Ignoring the Lemon Test, my professor made a logical argument that says that guarenteed Intelligent Design endorses a religion...
To "teach" intelligent design means simply to argue that the world was intelligently designed by some "master-craftsman" (as the book Of Pandas and People puts it). This begs, what is this master-craftsman? You can't assign any adjectives, motives, or feelings to this without endorsing creationism, which the Supreme Court has ruled is NOT a science, and you certainly can't go into much detail without endorsing a religion.
What do you say to that? It's logically correct.
---
Gay Marriage
I sStill don't think he refuted the (I hate this title) "slippery slope" argument, but he did say that logically saying that if weare headed for a "slsippery slope" of decline means that here and now we are at the pinical (sp) of our society NOW and this direction would inevitably lead to decay.
But, this phenomenon wasn't unheard of back when, oh I don't know, we were letting differnt races marry, which for a long time were not recognized marriages in the US. So he says, you can view it as a slippery slope, or you can view it as progress. My main concern is that the same argument the gay community is making can be made by any group of people. I did rebuke the class for wasting time with religious arguments and the definition of marriage...you can make this argument very secular and have a credible point when arguing to an athiest...the issue isn't whether it is A REAL TRUE MARRIAGE it is whether we are depriving a minority of their Constitutional rights of equal treatment and equal protection under the law. The question for me still is, can't any minority make that argument?
I didn't give him any ground on marriage though. He insists that the government and society should recognize the imperfections in people and grant divorices liberally tto anyone that wants one (as they do now). Still, I think that more responsibility should be put on people who are engaged to be married. You shouldn't go "oops, this isn't what I wanted" after you've said your vows. Get to know someone, be SURE that this is what you want. Is that such a hard thing to ask? You shouldn't try your lot at everyone knowing the state will bail you out, that's what dating is for, and you don't need a fancy form for that either.
----
ON a final note, at Mason there were some Christians "evangelising" (sp) outside in the free speech area, yelling (literally, in a preacher kind of fashion) that gays were going to hell and that allah is a false god. Needless to say, within minutes the carvan of middle easterners and the entire Gay-Straight Alliance club rolled up, formed a mob and started yelling and screaming at them. I actually sat down and talked to one of the guys...they are really believers in what the Biblesays, and they based their conclusions on biblical passages. They weren't yelling back at the people, they sat their and took it, not once did they personally insult anyone...it was the "offended" parties that came off looking stupid. But yeah, sorry, I was talking to one of the guys who was in the middle of a circle of people calmly taking questions and debating people, again, very calmly, on their questions and concerns. I heard him talk about marriage and I agreed with him on it (it was basically my position above).
I felt bad for them, I really felt like yelling at the people yelling and saying if you really want to make a statement, just walk on by and don't listen to them. First of all, if you're Muslim, you believe that all us non-muslims are going to hell anyway, you're just not saying it. And if your gay, who cares if someone tells you you are going to hell? Why believe them? If God truly loves you, then it shouldn't matter what these people say. And to those evangelists that were there, they have my respect...they can speak and argue in a way that I envy.
Damn, I'm done.
-paul
PS: Longest...entry...ever.