Margaret315’s Weblog

Affirmative Action March 4, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — margaret315 @ 10:25 pm

I do not think that we should eliminate affirmative action in the United States. As a white person from a middle class family it would be very easy for me to say eliminate it all together however as a female I can see what a difference affirmative action has made. I can get almost any job a male can and I have many of my rights to thank to the work of affirmative action. Although I cannot relate to the struggles that other races and minorities experience I will always support programs that help promote equality even though such equality may not be attainable for the whole world any progress in progress in my mind. Another reason for affirmative action is education. I firmly believe that every woman, male, child has the right to education. With affirmative action not only have women dawned campuses but also minorities who otherwise would not be able to afford education. Finally, it is evident that discrimination is still prevalent in our society today. Affirmative action strives to eliminate such instances in the work field giving everyone who is qualified for the job, no matter their race, an equal chance at the job.

Leave a Comment

Demo vs. Repub October 8, 2008

Filed under: Uncategorized — margaret315 @ 2:25 am

The second political discussion that I viewed The Place for Politics on NBC, this is from the “Face Off” segment. The two debaters are Maryland Democrat Christopher VanHollen and Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn. The main topic was why Democrats seem to have an advantage, if they do at all. The host tells the two that in a poll of “Who do you want to control Congress?” The results were democrats 49% and republicans 36%. VanHollen is asked if he “fears that there is a ‘throw the bums out mentality’ that is sweeping Washington?” VanHollen responds that he does not fear this because the people have always looked at Congress and distinguished between the decisions of the democrats and the decisions of the republicans. He claims that when they observed this the people noticed the democrats as a political party “trying to get the economy moving again,” and a party that “understands the health care stress.” VanHollen claims this is why all polls support the democrats. Blackburn responds that in the generic ballot the advantage of the democrats is creeping down. She states that the proposed bail out package is “incredibly unpopular,” and the democrats were the ones that “took the lead.” Furthermore Blackburn states that McCain is putting more focus on ensuring Americans of his judgement and his trust. VanHollen says this is merely McCain changing the subject because McCain “constantly loses whenever he brings up the topic of the economy.” VanHollen argues that McCain’s tendency to constantly change the subject is yet another reason that Americans are “noticing that Democrats are the only ones working to change the economy.” This was civil dialogue on both of the speakers parts however they both stood behind their political party. I learned that their are 100 votes from the undecided states up in the air and the economy issues and the candidates plans seems to be a deal breaker.

Leave a Comment

Fact Checking the VPs October 8, 2008

Filed under: Uncategorized — margaret315 @ 2:03 am

The discussion I watch an NBC news, but I viewed online. The topic was fact checking the vice presidents for their performance in the debate. The speaker in the discussion was Kevin Corke who debated with the statements Palin and Biden made during the debate. Kevin claims that he always finds it interesting what candidates will say on the matter of taxes and whether they will play it safe and remain general, or get into “minute accurate details.” Palin says that Obama voted yes n a budget bill for a tax increase on families making “only 42,000 dollars a year.” Biden responded by saying that statement was false. Corke agrees with Biden saying that Obama did vote yes, but the vote in no way increased taxes, merely set budgetary goals. He also says that according to those goals those making 42,000 dollars a year will get a 1000 dollar tax cut, which Palin left out, but Biden added. Corke believes this is because the same person would get a tax cut under the McCain plan, but significantly smaller. Although this was not a true debate, Corke spoke with civil dialogue while taking a clear side to the argument on taxes. I like that Corke maintained civil dialogue and especially liked how he pointed out that the candidates “time and time again will make harsh accusations, that we believe.” I think his analysis and opinion on how the candidates discussed taxes revealed that Sarah Palin thought she could only speak generally on taxes, which as shown, is not sufficient enough.

Leave a Comment

Freedom of Religion (Establishment Clause) September 28, 2008

Filed under: Uncategorized — margaret315 @ 11:03 pm

Engel vs. Vitale

Addresses Children being "Forced" to Pray in Classrooms

Freedom of religion should always be not only a granted right, but a protected right. Religion is part of you. As Americans the religion, if any, we choose to practice, reflects us. One religion should not be preferred over another, and everyone should have free practice of religion as in accordance with the first amendment. I feel very strongly that if this right was not established or protected religion would cease to exist. Religion is very personal and faith is about feeling comfortable. If the government were to pressure citizens to follow one faith religion would no longer be unique. The freedom of religious establishment should not be violated nor abused as in the Engel vs. Vitale case. If the choice, the personal choice and commitment, to practice a religion, were taken away religion would become a chore, a task, an obligation.

The New York State Board of Regents passed, in 1951, a request from New York public schools to recite a nondemonimational prayer at the beginning of every school day. The prayer read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” It was optional for student participation, however it was recited aloud daily in every classroom. The parents of ten students argued that the prayer, whether a requirement or not, contradicted both their and their children’s religious beliefs. When presented to the Senate appeals court it was confirmed constitutional so long as it was not mandatory for students to participate in. Because the school was a public New York school, was the first Amendment violated when a “prayer time” was established for students and is this an issue of separation of church and state?

The Supreme Court ruled the reciting of the Regent’s prayer in schools unconstitutional. Justice Hugo Black stated, “There can, of course, be no doubt that New York’s program of daily classroom invocation of God’s blessings…in the Regents’ Prayer is a religious activity…” It was argued that the prayer was so brief and general that it did not go against nor for any one type of religion. It was stated by the Supreme Court that the issue was the government supporting the prayer in a public school. Because the government financially supports the school, there is a problem with the separation of church and state. In support of the Supreme Court’s argument Black referred back to James Madison, ”Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?” The Supreme Court emphasized that in the separation of church and state, the state cannot compose a prayer and make it an official prayer activity in a government supported school. Thus, creating a prayer time in New York public schools was ruled unconstitutional going against the establishment clause of the first amendment.

In 1991 there was a question over whether or not high school graduations should be permitted to say benedictions and prayers referencing God, another issue of the separation of church and state. “The Bush Administration joined the Providence School Committee in asking the Court not only to permit the graduation prayers, but also to abandon its longstanding approach to analyzing government-sponsored religious activities. “ It was later decided in Lee vs. Weisman that public middle and high schools could have religious people give benedictions and prayers at graduation. I agree with both this ruling and Engel vs. Vitale. In Engel vs. Vitale the government was the primary supporter of state public schools the role they played in this was obsolete. They have no basis and no justification creating a prayer recited daily in school. I know the most popular counter argument is that the prayer was optional, no child was forced to say the prayer. That in my mind is a poor argument. If I was raised to not believe in God it would not make a difference whether or not I am saying a nondenominational prayer daily, or hearing one, I would still feel uncomfortable. The first amendment protects our right to freedom of religion. In this case, because the school was not private, religion or religious ideas represented in the prayer were being imposed on children who might not believe such things. In any event the government had no right to prescribe a prayer, a religious thing in and of itself, to the school.