#8: Persecution In The Face of Love

            The debate concerning “Same-Sex marriage” has become an ongoing human rights issue all over the world. The issue has been addressed numerous times within the United States but progress has been minimal. However in May of 2012, same-sex couples finally gained some major political support when President Obama announced his blessing of same-sex marriages. Nonetheless his support has ignited a significant amount of heated and controversial debate throughout the media and internet and may also affect his votes during the Presidential Election.
            Many individuals who oppose the idea of same-sex marriages tend to do so because their religious beliefs condemn it. They also share the same belief that the individual chooses to be “gay” and isn’t inherently born that way. My response is simply this, YOU'RE WRONG! Why would someone choose to live a life full of persecution, suffering from insults, being bullied at school, being disowned by their family and living with the belief that they are condemned to an eternity in hell? Not the kind of fairy-tale ending everyone hopes for. If equal rights are supposed to be obtainable to all residents of the United States, then why can’t same sex couples get married within the United States?   
            In my opinion the concept of love is too complex for any of us to comprehend. In other words we don’t spontaneously pick who we fall in love with, we have no choice in the matter. It’s also impossible for an outsider to interpret why two individuals fell in love and at times the two individuals cannot explain it their selves. However when religion is applied to the concept of love, heterosexuals feel that they take precedence over homosexuals. Since the bible condemns any act of homosexuality as blasphemy, heterosexuals feel they have the right to condemn them to the same fate. However what they fail to realize is that when they condemn homosexuals they condemn themselves as well.
            On the other hand Obama’s support did not stop with same-sex marriages. He is also responsible for “endorsing the Student Non-Discrimination Act (Lussenhop)” which investigated schools all over the United States who failed to protect their homosexual students from harassment and bullying. Growing up it was not uncommon for children to be subjected to some minor childhood teasing. However, at what point does minor teasing become something more prominent like bullying and harassment. Can you imagine how derogatory words like faggot, queer or homo affect younger gay kids who struggle with their sexual orientation? What’s more disturbing is the amount of suicides associated with this type of bullying and harassment and the fact that they could have easily been prevented if schools weren’t neglecting to correct this type of negative activity.
            Homosexual students are often subjected to bullying and sexual harassment on a daily basis at school. “The Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network reported that 84.6 percent of LGBT students are verbally harassed in school (Lussenhop).” Another study by GLSEN indicated that, “a scant 9 percent of school principals believed anti-gay bullying was happening often within their school (Lussenhop).” Homosexual students are teased, called names, stabbed with pencils, jumped by gangs and have even been urinated on by other students just because of their sexual orientation. This type of harassment should not go unnoticed within our education system and many students have lost their lives because no one had the decency to stand up for them. The time for change is NOW and this change must start with US.

Source: 
Lussenhop, Jessica. "The Gay Selma: Schools Ignore Gay Bullying at Their Own Peril." Riverfronttimes.com. Riverfront Times News, 31 May 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2012. <http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2012-05-31/news/schools-ignore-gay-bullying-at-their-own-peril/>.

#7: Mid-Term Sample Bibliography

*Meet with Mr. Michael Benton on Wednesday September 12th to discuss the Bibliography assignment. I was advised at that time that it was okay to only have 3 sources from my Mid-Term paper and those sources could also include the book that I purched for the class for this assignment.

Sample Bibliography:

1.) Ahmed, Akbar. Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2010.

2.) Chirot, Daniel. Contentious Identities: Ethnic, Religious, and Nationalist Conflicts in Today’s World. New York: Routledge, 2011.

3.) Peek, Lori. Behind the Backlash: Muslim Americans after 9/11. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2010.

4.) Ryan, Michael. An Introduction to Criticism: Literature/File/Culture. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

 

#6: Double Standards in the United States Government

In reference to Glenn Greenwald’s article “Terrorism: The Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word,” I agree that the term “Terrorism” has definitely lost its true meaning within the United States and has in a sense become meaningless. Through the media and political publicity concerning “the war on terrorism”, the term terrorism is no longer identified as ANY act of violence or ANY act of intimidation in regards to gaining political aims. Instead the new meaning has become a direct correlation between religious identities, nationalities, and beliefs or opinions that disagree with those of the U.S. The term was not meant to be directly associated with a specific nationality or religious groups, but yet it has been manipulated to do so. The definition should be inclusive of ALL individuals not just the individuals of Muslim descent.

I feel that because the term “Terrorism” has taken on multiple meanings or definitions, it is also responsible for forming a double standard within our judicial system in regards to nationality and religious beliefs. For example, when two airplanes (controlled by Muslim pilots) collided with the World Trade Centers, the incident was deemed as an act of terrorism. Or when Americans and Non-Americans were persecuted in Iraq due to their religious beliefs (Christianity), this incident was also deemed as an act of terrorism. Both of these instances involved acts of violence between two different nationalities and religious identities and both were deemed as acts of terrorism by the U.S. government. Why is that so?  It is because each situation involved an individual who is of Muslim descent or involved a country in which its population’s religious identities are centered on Muslim or Islamic beliefs. Another reason has to do with the term “terrorism” and how its meaning has been manipulated to mean “anyone associated with Muslim/Islamic nationality or religious beliefs.”

 Now let’s analyze two more incidents discussed in Mr. Greenwald’s article on “Terrorism” and decide whether these incidents can be identified as acts of terrorism. The first incident involved an individual named Joseph Stacks who was responsible for piloting an airplane and maneuvering it so that it collided with a building that housed offices for the IRS. The second incident involved the murderous attacks (committed by “Christians”) on doctors and clinicians outside of an abortion clinic. In both of these cases neither act was classified as acts of terrorism by the U.S government even though they were clearly acts of violence in which political issues have been concerned. I must ask, is there a difference in comparison between the previous incidents and the ones just discussed? Not really, other than the differences between the religious beliefs and the nationalities of the individuals.

These examples confirm my theory of a double standard existing within the judicial system of the U.S. government. Both incidents have close to the same motives, the difference is that one incident involves Muslims and the other involves Americans. Any kind of violent acts committed by Muslims in regards to political aims are characterized as terrorism; however when these same violent acts are implemented by Americans their merely classified as heinous crimes. The manipulated term for terrorism paves the way for a double standard in our judicial system. A judicial system that uses the phrase, “with liberty and justice for ALL,” to signify loyalty, faithfulness, and devotion to all individuals. My only question is: “How can our judicial system utilize this concept if it’s not meant for ALL people but only those who are American?”

#5: A Call for Action

            The importance of reading is significantly stressed in our education system beginning when were young and advancing past college education. We are also taught at a young age that boy’s are very different from girl’s and that its hard to live with them but we cant live without them, or that kids act silly or abnormal because they haven’t matured yet, or that there are some choice names for identifying those whose skin colors don’t match ours. But what about kids who don’t think that its impossible to live without those of the opposite sex, or kids who continue to act funny or abnormal even when their peers are beginning to mature, or the kids who don’t understand why their skin is a different color than their peers and don’t understand why they are called names? They begin to develop a mentality, in which they see their selves as society sees them: as misfits, social outcasts, mentally challenged (remedial), abominations, etc… They begin to feel hopeless, like they don’t belong and ultimately they begin to feel alone. No one speaks out for them and no one stands up for them and when someone does, the consequences can be severe.

            In response to the article “Say Yes to Gay YA,” the question that sticks with me is, “What do most YA (young adult) novels have in common?” They are usually about young heterosexual males or females who face some of the very same issues we faced when we were younger and that teens still face today. (Like I said some of us) These issues are usually associated with: dating, acceptance, family, peer pressure and bullying among other things. These novels all focus on the life of a “normal” teen, and even though these novels depict those hardships of “normal” teenagers what about the teenagers who aren’t normal? Sure losing a boyfriend, not getting along with your family, not fitting in, being bullied and peer pressure are all difficult situations to overcome during the adolescent years, but imagine those hardships magnified by 20. These issues have no correlation to the insurmountable struggles faced by teens who suffer with disabilities, sexual orientations and racial discrimination.  

            The authors associated with this article understand the feelings these teens face because they have taken the time to listen. These teens struggle with suicide, struggle with being accepted by friends, family and society, and have no hopes of leading a normal life. They feel alone in the world and have a hard time relating to or looking up to anyone, they have no role models. The authors wanted to provide these teens with a hero, someone they could look up to and show them a world or a reality in which they could be accepted, even if it is just a fictitious reality. However their hopes are continuously thwarted by editors who have the final push in getting their novels published. The editors insist upon rewriting or removing homosexual male leads in these books and replacing them with heterosexual males. Male and female leads are always depicted as white and illustrated as white on the covers of books, even when the novels specifically states that they are of a different race. Individuals with disabilities are almost never motioned in YA novels, and are definitely never casted as a protagonist in the novels. We cannot begin to comprehend the type of message this sends to those who are discriminated against because of things they cannot control. We are sending the message that these teenagers are such a disgrace to society that their not even important enough to write about in novels. And we wonder why it is that the teenage suicide rates are going up.

            The world that we live in is becoming more and more diverse with each generation that is birthed. Homosexuality is more common in today’s society then it was 20 years ago, as well as children with disabilities. As diversity spreads we must become more diverse and more accepting of things in which we do not understand. We must understand that race or ethnicity is not something you choose, neither is homosexuality or disabilities. These are traits that we have inherited since the time of conception, traits in which we did not choose but were merely passed through genetics. So how can society be so condemning? It’s because we don’t take the time to listen or understand; were afraid of the abnormal or that in which we can’t explain. It’s not our job to condemn; that is God’s job. We all should remember that these individuals need compassion and love and if we don’t take a stand for them who will?

The article “Say Yes to Gay YA,” is not only a plea for us to take action in supporting the new diverse generations of teenagers. It is also a statement asking readers to declare their support of homosexuality and diversity in the YA novel industry. The only way for change to be initiated is for us to show our support for novels where the main characters are LGBTQ, or of a different race, or have disabilities. We have to be the ones to say its ok and demand these books be produced. Our opinions matter and it’s our duty to implement them by doing book reviews, sharing comments about the books, and vote for books like these to be produced and published. We can’t wait for others to implement these changes; we must answer the Call for Action and implement the changes ourselves. It’s time to put our fear behind us and take a STAND for what we believe in!

#4: My Egalitarian Political Philosophy

Upon taking my “Political Compass Test”, I discovered that my political view was associated or linked to the same views of a Left-Libertarian. Left-Libertarian’s focus an equal amount of attention on the freedom of each individual and the justice incorporated with all social classes. They focus on a multitude of approaches like: society, culture, and politics as well as the theories associated with politics and society. They believe in the idea of “self-ownership” or individual autonomy, in which the individual is in total control of their life and body. Personally, I feel that my ideas, views and beliefs are associated more with Egalitarianism rather than the views of Left-Libertarian’s. I feel that my personal political philosophy is Egalitarianism; the following paragraphs will explain why.

            Egalitarianism is a philosophy that is centered on the equality of society as a whole, and emphasizes the idea that all humans (no matter race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc…) are equal. In regards to political power, we believe that the power is not equally in the hands of the people or society as a whole, but is still maintained and established by the ruling class. We believe that every individual is to be treated equally as citizens and have the same civil rights (economically, socially and politically) within society as a whole, regardless of the ruling class or where the citizens within the population originated from. Our society continues to evolve and progress throughout history; instead of progressing towards a more equal environment, our society has become diluted by derogatory concepts. It is our responsibility to purge our society of derogatory concepts such as: racism, sexism and discrimination in order to create an environment more focused or global unity. In my opinion, these derogatory concepts have been detrimental to our society’s ability to gain equality as a whole since before the 1700s. It is also our belief that everyone within our global community (no matter if their American, African America, Asian, Korean, Hispanic, Male, Female, Christian, Agnostic, Muslim, Gay, Lesbian, Trans-gender, etc…) should be equal citizens within their society and have the same equality when it comes to freedom, rights and laws. For example: laws concerning marriage should not be limited to individuals of the opposite sex only, if freedom of religion is acceptable within the United States then all religions should be taken into account when making a law based off of a religious principal or perspective and gender specific laws should pertain to all genders instead of one or the other. Freedom is not debatable; it is mandatory and if our freedom is being violated then so are our rights.

            Egalitarians believe that the fundamentals of equality originated from the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is credited for teaching us that woman and men, no matter their racial or ethnical backgrounds, were all created as equal. But even though the fundamentals of equality originated from the religious teachings of Jesus Christ, it doesn’t mean that the members of the church have actively participated in equality. Even in my life today I feel the effects of discrimination and inequality within my rights as a citizen. Injustice should not have to be tolerated within a society that bases so much of their judicial system upon the key principals and laws derived from their biblical and religious aspects. Religion was supposed to teach society that we are all equally created by God with no superior individual other than him; these teachings have become seriously misconstrued from when they first originated to how they are perceived now. I don’t claim to know all the answers to the needs of our society or how to establish equality within it, but I do know that we have to start somewhere. (Why not start now?)

#3: Lost in Thought

When the Age of Enlightenment was introduced to the world in the 17^th century, society was attempting to decipher actual truth rather than what was believed to be true. Society was attempting to relinquish their narrow minded mentality that there is only one “true” or right answer to a given perspective, instead of having multiple possibilities. The purpose of the reform was to emphasize the significance of reasoning, as an alternative to the present faith, tradition and revelation aspect of reasoning. Reasoning requires us to think about the possibilities of many different perspectives, but without proper education that ability to reason can be quite complex. During this time education was not of high importance in society, and society seen no reason to establish an education system. It was thought that society was already made up of two types of individuals; those who were inherently intelligent, and those who lacked intelligence. But in order for society to make any prominent advancement, education must be present; if it isn’t then the past has the tendency to repeat itself.  Thus the importance of education began to grow and education became a requirement throughout most of the globe.

            Mr. Ken Robinson informs us that education is in the process of reforming throughout the entire country. As we take a look at our own society we see that in regards to the youth of today, education has gone down on the totem pole of importance. Robinson tells us that there are many reasons why this is to be the case. For example: the standards for education are at an all-time LOW, today’s education was not designed for this “always evolving” age and that BEFORE higher education promised an occupation after graduation when in today’s society that can be no longer guaranteed. So the students of today’s society ask their selves “why”, why do we need an education if theirs no guarantee of a job afterwards? Another point Robinson makes is that in order for education to advance we must first fix the existing problems. We must understand that there are flaws in our education system that requires some maintenance and attention. No longer do we understand the youth of today’s society, no longer do we understand the way in which they think, learn and understand contextual information and no longer does a question have one definite correct answer but instead have an unlimited amount of concepts or solutions. Robinson believes that in order for education to be of high importance again, we must first reform the ways in which it is being taught, because the old ways are extremely outdated.

            In another aspect Mr. Matthew Taylor poses the question to us: “Has education become more valuable to us than becoming a world united in peace?” Have we focused too much attention on educating ourselves and boasting about our strengths that we have neglected other globally important issues? In some aspects WE have put to much emphasis on educating ourselves and neglected our duties as a nation to become more globally diverse. Instead of being empathetic towards the diverse needs in the world we spend our time maliciously criticizing their beliefs and customs. We associate the World Trade Center attack with one group of Islamic individuals, and soon our associations become more abstract as to say that every member of the Islamic community is a terrorist. We associate a Wade Michael Page’s act of violence towards the individuals of a Sikh Temple as an act of white supremacist instead of classifying his actions as what they really were, terrorist. We must shy away from the mentality that we as Americans are the victims; we have to realize that the word “victim” does not refer to Americans, Christians, or a hardship as a whole but represents a single person caught in an act of violence. That goes for every single individual regardless of race, origin, or religion. Unless our perceptions of the world and others change and we put more focus on becoming more empathetic and globally diverse, there will be no hope for our society to evolve as a whole.

Each topic we discussed today has put emphasis on one initial point; if we hope to become united globally then we must learn to broaden our narrow minds to the possibility that the world is not full individuals who are educated or uneducated, individuals who are right or wrong or individuals who are good or evil. We must realize that these characteristics exist in all of us; they do not condemn us but enables us to all become more diverse in a world with many possibilities and perspectives.

#2: Marionette's of Society

     I think you make a valid point identifying that every individual has a “they” of their own Mr. Rushkoff. Ideally we like to think that we all make our decisions and choices on our own with no
outside interference. However you point out that our decisions are not made by us, but merely dictated to us through the commands of a higher authority. It’s agreeable to say that as we grow up our decisions are not our own but are made for us by our parents, but it doesn’t cease after we begin
our ascension from childhood to becoming an adult. I am not saying that as we mature into adults we
become puppets just waiting to be controlled by our “Marionettes”.(Bosses, media, Internet, etc…)We still have freedom to make our own decisions, however there may be some repercussions to those decisions depending upon the current circumstance.

     You also question us as to why we feel that we must listen to the “theys” who influence our futures. The reasons you have pointed out are highly viable in demonstrating why we feel we must submit to their decisions. I would like to add a little more to the explanation why. Each decision we made as a child has been closely monitored by our parents who worked piously at establishing a set of moral rules that built a foundation by which we used in our decision making. Often these moral rules originated from religious principals established within the church.Growing up we have been conditioned that certain decisions can be sinful, and if sin continues without repentance our souls may spend an eternity burning in hell. With this revelation laying dormant in our subconscious, the decisions we made as we matured were based out of the fear our parents instilled within us as a child. This insinuates that the decisions we made growing up were not justifiably ours but that of our parents or religious icons. Thus furthering your explanation as to why we feel we must listen to the “theys” of our society; because we have been conditioned to do so since we were children.