Torturing, Barbaric or Neccesary?

In a condemning report made public Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, interrogation techniques used by CIA agents in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks were released. They were not only harsh but comparable to torture and also ineffective.

Its release marked the end of a five year investigation by Senate officials, who combed through more than 6.3 million pages of documents to better understand how the CIA treated terrorism suspects in response to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

“This document examines the CIA’s secret overseas detention of at least 119 individuals and the use of coercive interrogation techniques — in some cases amounting to torture,” said U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein in a statement.

Many details already have been made public, including the near-drowning method of interrogation known as “water-boarding”, but its release Tuesday exposed new details about the program started under President George W. Bush.

A summary of the investigation noted that terrorism suspects were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques in a non-stop fashion for days or weeks at a time.” Methods included water-boarding, sleep deprivation for “up to 180 hours” and living conditions that were barbaric.

“CIA detainees at one detention facility, described as a ‘dungeon', were kept in complete darkness and constantly shackled in isolated cells with loud noise or music and only a bucket to use for human waste,” according to synopsis released by Dianne Feinstein’s office.

Senate investigators also claim the CIA consistently lied about the program and “provided extensive inaccurate information.” This includes over-estimating the usefulness of information obtained from its treatment of captives and false explanations of “how interrogation techniques were applied.”

Due to the sensitivity of the report and its unsettling findings, policymakers in Washington have argued for years over releasing it and then over  how much should be released.

“The release of the executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s study of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program is an historic victory for our nation, the Constitution, and our system of checks and balances,” U.S. Senator Mark Udall said in a statement.

“This study ensures that the truth about the CIA’s brutal torture program finally comes out and that the agency can learn from its repeated missteps and start to restore its integrity.”

A restore of integrity, is that how we should look at this? But the real question here is should we torture for information or not? I am still slightly undecided, but today I heard a very interesting argument. As a military super power and as a country founded on the principle of freedom and equality for all, how could we possibly torture people for information? How then would we be different from all other countries? We need to set a precedent for other countries to follow as they fight for freedom and democracy in their own countries. 

Although, we must keep in mind the other side of the argument, how could we risk the lives of thousands, possibly more, all in the name of integrity? It's a troubling question to answer and in no way black and white. The reality of it all is that torturing could lead to lives saved or, it could just be a barbaric practice.

The Power and Pit of The Grand Jury

As most of America has heard by now, there have been violent and destructive riots occurring in Ferguson, Missouri ever since November 24^th, when the grand jury announced to decline to indict police officer Darren Wilson. This is a crucial time to take a moment and reflect on the structure and system of our government, specifically the grand jury.

 A grand jury is defined as "A panel of citizens that is convened by a court to decide whether it is appropriate for the government to indict (proceed with a prosecution against) someone suspected of a crime." The grand jury is one of the first procedures in a criminal trial, if used at all. In the federal system, a grand jury can consist of 16 to 23 people, all chosen from the same pool of people that provide trial jurors. Subsequently grand juries tend to be composed of the same kinds of people who serve on regular trial juries.

The grand jury for this case was made up of 12 people (9 white and 3 African American). Had I chosen the jury, I certainly would have made it more culturally diverse and balanced to help decrease the likelihood of viewers claiming there was a bias -- and of course giving both parties a fair trial. For the most part, their decision is exactly what legal analysts expected. It is commonly known that it is very difficult to bring a charge against a police officer who was involved in this kind of shooting while on duty. Likely because it turns into a "he-said she-said" situation, and obviously a police officer’s word is going to hold more weight than that of a criminal/"violent citizen". Normally this kind of incident would have been dealt with through an internal affairs investigation — not to a grand jury. But considering the political tension in Ferguson, especially after the images of Michael Brown’s body on a residential street in that city spread throughout St. Louis, and the world, a grand jury was hoped to satisfy the larger population.

After the outbreaks of riots, President Obama decided to address the nation with a very diplomatic speech that he hoped would respect and address all concerned. He started with this, “First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make.” He reminded the nation that if we want our government system to work, we much accept and respect the laws and decisions that are made. The case was presented to the grand jury, and the jury made a decision, that’s that.


He then continued by quoting Mr. Brown’s father, “Let me repeat Michael’s father’s words: ‘Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.’  Michael Brown’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes.”

May I just say, brilliant on the president’s behalf for quoting Michael’s father in an attempt to stop the riots. I may not agree with some of Obama’s political views, but when it comes to speeches, he always knows what to say and just how to say it (shoutout to his team of talented speech writers).

As for the quote, I couldn’t agree with Brown's father more. The outraged citizens of Ferguson absolutely have the right to protest about the jury’s decision, as many did. This is the way constructive change can be made for those who feel wronged! But burning the American flag, destroying their own town, and putting innocent citizens in harm’s way is NEVER the answer, it’s just the easy and reckless way out. Instead of organizing a strategic and meaningful protest, people decided to start lighting things on fire. What good could that ever bring about?

Reflect on this, “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
   

Executive Power

When people think about the U.S. President, they tend to think about an all-powerful leader who has no limitations or bounds. People tend to forget that this is still a democracy, not a dictatorship, there for the President does not have the power to do anything and everything he pleases, whenever he wants. In all reality, yes, the President has a surplus amount of power but he also has a long list of limitations to that very power. 

The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He or she has the power to call into service the state units of the National Guard, and in times of emergency may be given the power by Congress to manage national security or the economy. He has the power to make treaties with Senate approval. He can also receive ambassadors and work with leaders of other nations. He is responsible for nominating the heads of governmental departments, which the Senate must then approve. In addition, the president nominates judges to federal courts and justices to the United States Supreme Court.

The President can also issue executive orders (which this post will be focusing on), that have the effect of law but do not have to be approved by congress. He can issue pardons for federal offenses, convene Congress for special sessions and veto legislation approved by Congress. However, the veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote by Congress

For the most part, that about summarizes the President's executive power. Now as to why I am addressing all this, President Barack Obama will be announcing as early as next week executive actions to overhaul the U.S. immigration system. He said he had decided to take these measures after an immigration revamp passed by the Senate died this year in the Republican-controlled House. His plans to act alone have infuriated newly empowered Republicans who believe they have earned a chance at the polls to write their own immigration laws.

Although, the President’s timing may be questionable, he does have complete rights to this executive order, even if it is just for votes in the next election.

“My executive actions not only do not prevent them from passing a law that supersedes those actions,” he said at a news conference on Nov. 5, “but they should be a spur for them to actually try to get something done.”

And with that statement, I believe he made great point, his actions don’t ensure that what he WANTS is going to happen, but that at least something will happen!

A Breath of Fresh Rationalism

After almost every circuit court in the country had ruled in favor for same-sex marriage, the 6th Circuit threw the headlines a curveball. Headed up by Judge Jefferey S. Sutton, the court ruled against same-sex marriages thanks to Judge Suttons eloquent and enlightening argument.

I can personally say after hearing the same arguments again and again, for and against same-sex marriage,  the topic was getting quite old. Judge Sutton, thank God, has offered a new argument to the table, one that I actually appreciate does not base its self off religion --not because I am not religious or because I believe it's not a religious matter, but because now, those who are not religious have no excuses to disregard the argument. When presented the "God says same-sex marriage is wrong, therefore it is" argument, anyone who does not believe in God can easily say that what He has said is irrelevant.

Judge Sutton's argument is refreshingly based off of the Constitution and basic rationalism. Even though Judge Sutton knew that the U S. Supreme Court appears to be determined to legalize same-sex marriage, his responsibility was to decide the cases in light of the U S. Constitution and the rule of law. His argument clearly mirrored that decision. Judge Sutton ruled that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly did not see that language as requiring states to legalize same-sex marriage. 

I must be honest, to completely understand that statement I needed to further understand the  Fourteenth Ammendment. It states that citizens are to be given "full and equal benefit of all laws." Aftert clarifying that I believe that Sutton was attempting to remind his listeners that the framers of our Amendments did not intend the fourteenth to be intrerpreted as the advocates for same-sex marriage have done.

Then came his argument which  incased one of the most important sentences written by any judge in recent times: “A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States.”

 

Brilliance, absolute brilliance! How can people say that the view of marriage being only between a man and a women as "unconstitutionally irrational" when that very veiw was recently believed by every society, all over the world, unchallenged for centuries. Do you really think, after all these years,  that the whole time our ancestors were doing it completely wrong? In my opinion, our ancestors are the ones who had it right. 

Overall, bravo to Sutton! 

President Obama's Speech: An insult to Stay-at-Home Moms?

My first reaction when I saw article titles with Obama’s name in them was, “Oh gosh, what now?” The first article I read was off of The Federalist, titled: “Three Reasons President Obama is Wrong about Stay-At-Home Mothers.” After reading just the title alone I thought he really did himself in this time! Coming from a home of four girls, all close in age, which my mother became a stay-at-home mom to take care of, I know that if there is anything you can say to aggravate a bunch of moms, it’s insulting their choice to become stay-at-home moms!

I moved on to read the article, remind you, still before listening to President Obama’s speech to which this article was commenting on, and there it was, the quote that had this article writer and others so irked:

            “Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids,      which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result,” he said. “That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”

My very first response was: “Oh, maybe he just meant that he didn’t want moms to HAVE to make the choice to leave their jobs.” I continued to read the response to this quote and thought that there had to be more than this statement to make this writer feel the need to defend the entire principle of stay-at-home moms!

I decided to read the actual speech before reading any more articles (admittedly what I should have started with, oops!) I read and read, anxiously waiting from Obama to drop the insulting stay-at-home mom bomb, but he never did! In my opinion, forgive me if I’m wrong, but the article from The Federalist had completely missed the point of the president’s speech! He wasn’t discouraging the choice of moms staying home at all! He clearly stated his purpose here:

            “In particular, I want to zero in on the choices we need to make to ensure that women are             full and equal participants in the economy.”

He was actually defending women’s roles in the economy. Something most women are continually fighting for in the work force. A principle that my own mother repeatedly minded me of with stories from her experiences as an ambitious woman in a business world dominated and controlled by men. President Obama was also recognizing the struggle women have to be successful in the work force while also raising children, and commonly taking time off to do so. My first response to the quote from The Federalist was correct; Obama wasn’t saying women shouldn’t choose to stay at home, but that they shouldn’t have to choose if they don’t want to! Anyone who heard or read the speech should have easily understood that. The president even went as far as to use his own mother to explain the societal problem he was addressing:

            “I was raised by a single mom, and know what it was like for her to raise two kids and go to work at the same time, and try to piece things together without a lot of support. And my grandmother, who never graduated from college but worked her way up to become vice president of a bank, I know what it was like for her to hit the glass ceiling, and to see herself passed over for promotions by people that she had trained.  And so some of this is personal, but some of it is also what we know about our economy, which is it’s changing in profound ways, and in many ways for the better because of the participation of women more fully in our economy.”

After reading this I sincerely do not understand how stay-at-home mothers could have felt insulted. Obama clearly understands the importance of stay-at-home mothers which is exactly why he is trying to make it easier for women to take paid-leaves from work in order to take care of their children.

Less Children & a Better World?

For myself, having children has always seemed like a given, I LOVE babies and cannot wait until the day I hold my very own baby in my arms; and then have the privilege to watch and help that baby, a part of myself grow. I understand that when I decide to have children that will be the end to a stage of my life. From then on, with every decision I make, I would have to take into consideration the fact that I have another living being to take care of. Does that mean having children is willingly giving up my freedom? In all honestly, it kind of is! No longer can you do whatever whenever you want, that baby is constantly relying on you for EVERYTHING.

When I read articles by women about why they are choosing to not have children, I am not shocked. Although when I hear that some people are choosing not to have children because they are worried about the environment? That's a little more surprising. Could not having children actually save our environment? I doubt it. Think about it, children take after their parent's mindsets, if all of the environment concerned people stop having children, they are eventually going to die off and then who is going to worry about the environment and make sure everything is "earth friendly"? Obviously this reasoning isn't exactly solid but I think it makes my point. The entire "save the earth and sterilize your body" philosophy is borderline dumb, for lack of a better word.

On the other hand there are a good amount of women who don't want to have kids simply because they don't want to. They would rather further their careers, travel abroad or just live less complicated lives. Which I believe is perfectly fine, if you don't want to have children then that is entirely your choice but I would recommend considering how that may hurt you in the future. Who is going to take care of you when you are old and helpless? I can almost guarantee it won't be that friend you travelled the world with, they will be too busy having the exact same problem! Darn...

It kind of makes you think that humans were created with the ability to reproduce for a reason? As if some supreme being planned this whole life thing out perfectly. What a coincidence!

Is there truth in religious liberty?

In the past, it has been understood that under the First Amendment, we have a right to religious liberty. Unfortunately, with every day and new law passed, that right is getting more and more blurred. This became very apparent to me when I looked into the Hobby Lobby case. It was decided religious liberty protections could not be applied to Hobby Lobby because it is a for-profit corporation, it isn’t a church/ "true religious employer" and it is wrong on the science behind their reasoning.

Most recently it has been ordered that every health care plan in the state of California must cover elective abortion. This law was made effective on August 22, yet California had not even applied this to its own state employee health plans --which at the time only covered “medically necessary” abortions. But nevertheless this law has been quietly imposed on every plan in the state, including Churches whose religious values go against elective abortion.

While California does exempt churches from its contraceptive mandate in their health policies, there is NO exception to this new abortion mandate. Yes, because that most definitely makes sense! You don't need to have contraceptives, but you must have abortion on your health plans --not to say it's right, but it would at least makes sense if they had it the other way around! It's ridiculous how illogical and impossible of a position this new law is putting California churches in --being free to exclude contraceptives from their health plan for reasons of religious conscience but required to provide their employees with abortion coverage.

So now we wonder, what will be the administration's response to this attack on religious liberty? If they couldn’t stand with Hobby Lobby because it was a for-profit business, not a church, and because they thought its concern was misplaced, will they now demand religious liberty for churches forced to cover elective abortion? Now that they are unable to use any of their excuses from the Hobby Lobby case, will they take a stand for our religious freedom?

Is there any truth left in the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections? Their response to California’s abortion mandate will reveal whether their claims of respect for religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby case were serious or simply excuses that point out an blantedly unvalued  view of religious liberty.

Missionary Medical Service

“No one complains when the West crams its commercial values down the throats of Africans, Indians, and Chinese, he pointed out in 1908. We insist that these unfortunate, uncivilized people buy our wheat flour and bicycles, even though rice and rickshaws are probably just as good. How is that different from what missionaries do? They simply offer Christianity rather than consumerism.” This is a point being made in the argument of missionary medical service.

The Ebola crisis, wiping our nation, has brought the dislike of missionary work to the surface. When an infected American missionary was flown back to the United States for treatment, Donald Trump grumbled that do-gooders trying to save Africa should be prepared to “suffer the consequences.” Ann Coulter called the doctor “idiotic,” and asked of his mission to Africa, “What was the point?”

How are people saying this?!

Brian Palmer on Slate.com stated that he “usually spends hours scouring PubMed, a research publications database from the National Institutes of Health, for data to support my story. You can’t do that with missionary work, because few organizations produce the kind of rigorous, peer-reviewed data that is required in the age of evidence-based medicine. How can we know if they’re effective, or how to improve the health care systems they participate in, if we don’t even know how many missionary doctors there are.”

To phrase simply, he believes because of a lack of data, there is therefore a lack of proof of effectiveness and in response, lack of support. 

Palmer then stated, "And yet, truth be told, these valid critiques don’t fully explain my discomfort with missionary medicine. If we had thousands of secular doctors doing exactly the same work, I would probably excuse most of these flaws. “They’re doing work no one else will,” I would say. “You can’t expect perfection."

There are so many ethical problems with this statement! This author is openly admitting that he is religiously biased. Practically saying, “I don't have any problem with third world medicine volunteering, I just don't like the people doing it.” Excuse me, but do these individual’s religious beliefs in anyway effect their ability to give medical care?! No! Not even in the slightly way! What if my father, a member of the medical field, dropped his current job in the luxurious California and left behind his hefty paycheck to go preform lifesaving surgeries and spread the gospel in a third world country? Would his sacrifice be any less legitimate or helpful if an atheist made the same decision? Does that even deserve an answer?

Although this writer was honest enough to share that he doesn't support missionary medical work because he is "discomforted" by it, he wasn't honest enough with himself as to look at the truth behind his opinion. It isn't the logistics or statistics but rather an effort which has been crumbling our great nation for far too many years: the devastating effort to remove God from the picture. Whether it's our schools, government, pledges, currency or religion itself. Our nation has been hard at work, ripping out one of our deepest roots; and quite frankly, this missionary medical work argument is just another yank.  Fortunately, most of our Christian roots go deeper than where unbelievers can reach.

Laws Don't Change Morals

The California Legislature recently approved a bill that would require colleges receiving state-financed student aid to change the definition of consent in their sexual assault policies, replacing “no means no” with “affirmative consent,” or as commonly phrased “yes means yes.” California was the first state in the country to take it to the point that any college without a consent policy will lose state financial aid.

Colleges outside of California have incorporated similar consent policies into student orientations which they report are leading to grumbling about risking "hot hookups" turning into an awkward series of requests. But, nevertheless some administrators are insisting that they see signs that their consent strategy is working. Supporters of affirmative consent say its greatest strengths may lie in a simple change of attitude and growth in report rate.

 Since a university adopted an affirmative consent policy last year they stated, “we are seeing a big pickup  in the number of students who are reporting sexual assault and relationship violence,” said Jane Bost, associate director of the university’s counseling and mental health center. So is this new policy actually working? So far, I'm not convinced of it. John D. Foubert, president of One in Four, said that without rigorous research, no one can be sure.  It will be a few years before we can actually determine if this new policy is successful.

Melissa Tumas, a sexual assault specialist at the University of Washington, which does not have an affirmative consent policy, said: “A perpetrator is ignoring consent. Will a definition deter perpetrators? I’m not sure, unless it helps shore up community support that this isn’t OK.” Tumas pointed out an obvious point that we were all thinking. Perpetrators are sick in the head; can we really believe that some affirmative consent policy is going to make them stop and change their ways? One would need to be delusional to even hope that's a possibility.

Another point to address, could this policy do more harm than good? Some believe that the bill could have dangerously expanded the definition of assault. Therefore making it easier for so said victims to charge their supposed perpetrators. Some would ask, who would ever accuse their partner with rape? But it is getting more and more common. I had a very close friend of mine do that very thing. She was a virgin, vigorously pursuing an older guy who she knew was mostly only physically interested in her, then under the influence of alcohol, lost her virginity to him, and the very next morning, overwhelmed with guilt and shame, called the police and charged him with statutory rape.. All of her friends, including myself, knew it wasn't rape and was consensual, but in the eyes of the law, she was underage, under the influence and therefore a victim. The boy, only 19, was sent to jail for two years and will forever carry that charge on his record, and will therefore effect the rest of his life.

Let's look at the bill again. It now defines consent more simply as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” (It need not be spoken) 
In all honesty, that's useless! What is the huge change being made here? How can you prove there was or wasn't consent if it doesn't even need to be spoken? You can't! Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a bill out there that can make sexual assault a black or white charge for the courts. What's needs to be done is addressing the real problem here! The morals! Quite frankly it should be clear that any sexual action without consent from both participants is illegal and wrong. And for many that may be clear but what needs to be more heavily addressed is the fact that this doesn't change if one participant is under the influence. If someone is too drunk to say no or yes, then obviously that participant is far to gone to make a decision at all! That is taking advantage of someone, no matter what the circumstances are. No bill can teach people that, it's a moral lesson that each individual must learn for him or herself. 

ISIS - Shaming Middle Easterns Around the World

“You are not safe even in your bedrooms”

This was stated by the Islamic State spokesman, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, as a warning to the West. ISIS attempted to rally fellow Muslims to attack and kill European and American citizens, stating, “Do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons and troops of the tyrants. Strike their police, security and intelligence members. “If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that joined a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,” he said.

“You will pay the price as you are afraid of traveling to any land,” he said addressing the West. “You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms. You will pay the price when this crusade of yours collapses.”

Disregarding these threats, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, continued to work to expand international support for Washington’s action against ISIS by holding a General Assembly of the United Nations.

Mohammad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, said that Iran was ready to work with the US and its allies in their efforts to bring down the Islamic State jihadists. By Iran agreeing to work with us, I believe Middle-Easterns, although mostly Muslim, are making a clear statement that they DO NOT support and are in no way affiliated with such extremists as the ISIS. On the other had, it is very disheartening that Iran is asking for "payback" for their cooperation. Yes, they are putting their country in a dangerous position my helping the US but isn't assisting the effort to save innocent lives enough award as is? And if not that, what about the fact that you're helping taking down an extremist group that has killed millions of innocent Middle-Easterns, for their "holy purpose."

The position of Middle-Easterns is obvious once one has researched the turmoil in their countries, but unfortunately remains unknown the majority of society. All of my Muslim friends are utterly embarrassed that people claiming their religion are acting in such a manner (which I would like to state more specifically but words such as violent, insane, radical etc. all seem like gross understatements.) We must remember that ISIS is a group of extremists and we cannot judge practicing Muslims for their behavior. My father's best friend, and a majority of my sisters' college friends are Muslim, although we do not agree with their ideology, we can all verify that they in no way reflect the actions or beliefs of these terrorists. 

Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam, stated that ISIS must be taken on as “forces of darkness” who are destroying the standing of the entire Islamic faith. This clearly states Saudi's political and religious stance against the extremists and their personal shame that they have not done more to protect their nation against them.

Currently, Iraq officials said at least 40 soldiers have been killed in recent suicide bombings from Islamic State militants and another 68 have been captured. This development caused the withdrawal of 700 troops following the attack.

Based off The Times article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11114677/Islamic-State-You-are-not-even-safe-in-your-bedrooms.html

Gay Marriage, are we not a land of freedom?

Yes, we are a country founded off of the desire for freedom, and yes, we stand for the principle that all men should be treated to equally. So shouldn't that mean that if a straight man can marry a women then why can't a gay man have the same right? Doesn't this seem hypocritical? Quite frankly it does. But prior to jumping to a conclusion on this question, let's take a look back. As I said before we are a country that was birthed for the purpose of freedom and equality, but what else was or country founded off of? Or to put properly, who? God, Christianity, the gospel!
Now before you write me off as another Christian ranter who hats gays, let me explain my point. Yes, I do believe that our country should not permit gay marriage. Yes, all men should be treated equally but also, as it says in the Bible, marriage is between a man and a women!
I believe the best solution for this issue would be for the states to make new laws, ones which allow gay couples to receive similar benefits to those received in a marriage, and of course give those laws a different name, leaving marriage to be the sacred bond between a man and a women, as it is in the Bible.
Yes, this may just be a pacifier to a much bigger issue growing in our country but sometimes a pacifier is just what you need when your country in screaming out for something it should not have.

Vanderbilt, New Requirement for Student Organizations

Leadership is defined in many different ways. One of the best definitions in my opinion is this: “Leadership is the art  of influencing and directing people in such a way that will win their obedience, confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in achieving common objectives.” — U. S. Air Force. The key work here is "common"; if a leader is influencing his or her followers toward an action, purpose or belief that is not their own or the intending direction, then are they really a good leader? That's similar to asking if a math teacher is a good teacher if they are causing their students to learn history, obviously not. So when I heard about Vanderbilt University making every campus group sign a pledge that they would not discriminate in their membership or leadership on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. in order to register as a student organization I was simply bewildered!
This new Vanderbilt rule was created after students claimed that a Christian organization on campus, Graduate Christian Fellowship (GCF), was discriminating against non-Christian members. This supposed discrimination was do to the organization's requirement that student leaders affirm their doctrinal and purpose statement. To state simply, they were requiring those who wanted to lead the Christian organization to BE Christian. This sounds more like common sense to me, they wanted leaders who shared COMMON objectives with their members. But Vanderbilt disagreed and put GCF on probation and told them that they had to drop the requirement or would lose their status as a registered student organization.
As it turns out, this wasn't the first time Vanderbilt had this issue on campus. During the previous school year, a Christian fraternity had expelled several students for violating their behavior policy. One student said he was ousted because he is gay. Vanderbilt responded by forbidding any belief standards for those wanting to join or lead any campus group.
Now, as a leader of several activities at my high school, I am one of the first to say that no one should ever feel left our or discriminated against for their beliefs, ethnicity or sexuality. I do agree with Vanderbilt in the aspect that anyone who wants to join a club or organization should be able to do so, but I disagree that just anyone should be able to lead those clubs or organizations. For example, at my private Christian high school, we permit anyone to become a student at the school because we believe it is out job and mission to share the gospel with everyone possible. But to run for a position of leadership on our student council, we must have our pastors sign a paper that verifies that we go to church weekly and therefore believe in the Christian doctrine. We do this because we know that no matter how "good" a leader is, they will not be successful unless they actually believe in the principles and purpose of the people whom they are leading.
Even in a non-religious aspect, for example, my oldest sister's sorority, Empowered Arab Sisterhood, which is an organization fighting for their rights as suppressed Arab women from the Middle East, permit all girls who want to join be welcomed, but those who want to take up a position of leadership must actually be Arab. Does this mean that the sorority is discriminating against all other ethnicities? No, they simply want their leaders to be passionate for their cause! Just like how GCF at Vanderbilt wants their leaders to be passionate for Christ! How could they possibly lead their members if they're not?
To be honest, this new requirement at Vanderbilt still confuses me because this idea of leadership seems like common sense! But is apparently not. Now I just pray these new requirements don't go any further, for the sake of organizations across the country.

Stereotypical, Racisit or Realistic?

Asians are all smart, Americans are obese, the French are hopeless romantics and African Americans are naturally athletic. So often we hear these racial stereotypes in our society, almost to the point where we are dumb to them. Is that ok? Or are we just ignoring a growing issue? Are we being stereotypical or just flat out racist?
This is the question I've been stuck on for a while now, and then the other day I had a slightly enlightening conversation with my father and my older sister who now attends the very liberal and culturally diverse University of Berkley, CA. My dad, a very blunt and honest man, made a stereotypical/ border line racist comment about Mexicans, to which both my sister and I responding to with shock and disdain. We told him, that no matter what you think, making a comment like that is inappropriate! But then my father asked, "Why is that wrong? It's true, there are statistics that proves it." So  I decided to do a little research. I found that yes, Asians do have the highest average IQs, America is the second most obese country in the world (recently beat out by Mexico), and African Americans are the most naturally athletic race according to several studies. After finding all these stereotypes to be true, I didn't have much ground for scolding my father. He was simply coming to a conclusion based on the facts he knew about the Mexican race, so could we classify this as "making an logical conclusion", racism or stereotyping?
According to Webster's dictionary, which I know seems very elementary to quote but often can be surprisingly enlightening, racism is defined as poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race; the belief that some races of people are better than others. And then stereotyping is to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same.
So lets think about it again, is it really racist to say that all Asians are smart? Is it poor treatment? No, violent? Obviously not. Does it imply that one race is better than another? Slightly, but it isn't implying that being smart is limited to the Asian race, its just pointing out a common characteristic between Asians. It would be safer to classify this comment as stereotypical. But now I must raise the question, is stereotyping necessarily wrong? It depends, like any other comment, digression must be used. Obviously if you think your comment is going to offend someone, then you shouldn't say it. But what about my father? His comment probably could have offended a few people but it was the truth. In this case, I would recommend changing the way you say your opinion. For example, instead of saying all white people are obese, opt to say that America has the 2nd highest obesity in the world. Your making your point by stating the facts without making assumptions. 
To wrap it up, I would like to remind everyone that we live in a world, and specifically a country where people tend to be very sensitive in comments concerning race, so always be conscious in your statements but never scared. We also live in a country where our first amendment is the freedom of speech, so if you really believer your comment is for the overall enriching of a conversation, SAY IT!   

Abortion, a moral issue?

                I have been raised in a family where even the idea of holding a boys hand is not ok, calling someone my boyfriend is not even an option, but the biggest line of all was drawn at having sex outside of a marriage. I am a seventeen year old, growing up in a society where all of this is acceptable, maybe even encouraged, but I’m living in an Egyptian Coptic Orthodox household where these norms are seemingly unthinkable.

My father and mother have blatantly told me that if I were to ever get pregnant outside of marriage, they would disown me; and never for a second do I doubt these threats. So when I am asked in my private Christian school if I would ever consider having an abortion, I shrink down and promise to myself that I will never have to make that decision, because knowing my parents beliefs, I am shamefully aware that my answer may not be morally right.

                Abortion is a growing political dispute especially in our country. Nearly 50% of pregnancies are unwanted and tragically almost half of those are “terminated” --The word that the world decides to use instead of “kill” because if that word was used, it would clear that what they are really doing is murdering. So in essence, 42 MILLION women choose to terminate their pregnancy. Let me put that in perspective for you. In the Holocaust, approximately 11 million people were killed and Stalin killed around 20 million. How absurd and alarming is it that the two largest mass murders in world history still don’t add up to the amount of lives ended by abortion. And now we have people in society saying that abortion is not even a “moral issue.” Excuse me, but how is murdering 42 innocent lives not a moral issue? If our society is going to accept that idealism then we might as well go ahead and accept that what Hitler and Stalin did wasn’t a moral issue either. They were making life how they believed it ought to be, even if that meant taking out millions of innocent lives to do so.  

                By this point, you may very well think I’m crazy, for comparing abortion to the Holocaust, but numbers don’t lie. Yes, a woman who decides to have an abortion only takes one life, while Hitler took millions, but it is the principle of not valuing a human life. I know there are many other opinions on the technicalities, but in the opinion of myself and my father who is a doctor, once a sperm penetrates an egg you have created human life. Human life, is a gift from God, if the creator of all things didn’t want you having this baby then do you think it would be happening right now?

                I am a firm believer in God, I am a firm believer in the fact that everything in life, including pregnancies, will occur just as He planned for them. And most importantly, I am a firm believer in the Ten Commandments which clearly states that killing is a sin, punishable by death. Yes, my dad may be one of the scariest human beings alive when he is angry, but nothing is scarier to me than an eternity in hell. So for that very reason, if I were ever to be asked if I was willing to kill my own unborn baby, NO MATTER the circumstances, I would be able to confidently and powerfully say NO.