THE LINETTE REGISTER

Separation of Church and State - Part 7

2008-03-02T22:02:00.000-08:00

This is the last part of a long essay I wrote on the Separation of Church and State.

7. Americans Must Understand Christianity

Lastly, Americans must understand Christianity. One cannot understand India without knowing about Hinduism, and one cannot possibly live in India without understanding Hinduism. Only when one understands Hinduism can one understand why cows roam freely around India. To succeed in India, one must be willing to accept the Hindu religion and the Indian lifestyle, as well as also understand the ideals, public opinion, and culture of the country. One can’t expect to be welcomed in Korea or China by praising Japan because the cultural sentiment toward Japan is bad. In the Middle East, a woman must know not to be active or visible, and one could very well get killed trying to preach Christian beliefs and acting as if one were in America. The same holds true for America.

To live in America, one must understand American ideals, values, and culture, not only through knowledge, but through experience. Having knowledge in one’s head and gaining knowledge through one’s own experience are two different things. Growing children especially must be taught about the foundation of America, its role in and effect on the world, its influence, the mindset of the founding fathers, and the reasons behind those ideas. Only then can children truly “know” America and come to understand it. The American government and religious institutions must be separated, but trying to remove all traces of religion will only inhibit America. Taking away a language from a person will handicap that person since people think with their language and taking away language would therefore be taking away the tool that gives people the ability to think. Similarly, Christian customs, traditions, and values along with history and science, which have their foundations in Christianity, are a form of living “language” that all Americans must know. Without Christianity, how would one understand America, talk about America and think about America?

The issue of human rights also shows the great influence that Christianity has. There is a need to look at Europe which now has turned its back on Christianity. European countries take human rights to the extreme, even going so far as to ban the death penalty. Nonetheless, they discriminate against foreigners and minorities, making it extremely hard and humiliating for these minorities to live in Europe. On the other hand, in America, minorities and even illegal immigrants to some extent are able to get education, healthcare, and have most of the benefits that all Americans have. These actions aren’t merely political schemes, but a result of the Christian ideology and values that shaped America. Christian values are what made Americans value minority rights and helping the less fortunate. If we take Christianity away, we will take all our American values with it. No other country protects human rights, minority rights, and freedom of speech as much as America. No other country helps the needy first, races to assist in the midst of a tragedy, and gives so much freedom to its people. Why is this? Is it because of education? Many other countries educate their population at least as much as America. Everyone must understand that these values and principles are all a fruit of Christianity. The politicians of America must realize that they have the responsibility to prevent anything from hindering such education.

We need to teach Christianity to students. That doesn’t mean making them Christians or making them go to church. It simply means that we need to teach our students what Christian values and beliefs are so that they are familiar with Christian life. Thus, decisions such as banning prayer sessions from school for instance, should be reconsidered. Attending prayer sessions will not make anyone Christian. Attending prayer sessions and being a Christian are two different things. Aside from trying to convert students to Christianity, we must allow prayer sessions and chapel sessions as a means for children to learn about America. Similarly, symbols such as the cross and the Ten Commandments are a symbol of sacrifice and American values, which are essential elements of American identity. It must not be removed, as it is another of America’s “language”. What can America gain by removing such symbols and language instead of helping other people understand it? When we teach lessons of sacrifice that our great ancestors made through such symbols, America’s future can become brighter.

Today, America is sympathizing with the peace activists today demonstrating against war, because they don’t know Christianity. The peace demonstraters’ arguments sound right to Americans and make Americans feel guilty because the American people don’t know the Biblical truth. Also, if people don’t know Christianity or the Bible, non-Christians, such as environmentalists could be mistaken as true Christians. The Bible teaches us to conquer and control the whole earth, but those who only understand Christianity as a religion of “emotional love” believe that we must “love” even animals like lions that kill humans. Even if humans are killed because of animals like bears and crocodiles, they don’t allow these dangerous animals to be killed, believing that keeping them alive is showing love for the animals. Many people also argue that the death penalty should be outlawed, because executing murderers is another murder in itself. America once listened to the voices of these people and some states completely outlawed the death penalty. However, what was the result of this “reform”? Murder rates rose to the point that the states eventually had to reinstate the death penalty. When people don’t understand Christianity, they feel guilty executing criminals because they believe it is simply another murder. When people don’t understand Christianity, they misunderstand criminals as just sick patients to be sympathized with. Thus, we must at least educate people so that such mistakes do not happen. It’s fine if people choose not to go to church, but they still need to understand and know.

Just like it is foolish to burn a house to kill a lice, refusing to receive the gifts that religion can give us because of bad influences that religious institutions had on politics in the past is also very foolish. We must help reliable and positive religions to flourish and spread its message to others. At the least, their efforts shouldn’t be hindered. The role of religion is very important since dangerous ideologies seep in when people’s hearts and minds are empty. The same goes for the political world, so we must make efforts to keep Christianity alive in America and make sure that Christianity can do its duties. When Christianity can perform its duties, when Christian values are respected, when every American understand Christianity, America can continue to grow and become a strong and great nation.

Separation of Church and State - Part 6

2008-02-29T08:31:00.000-08:00

This is the sixth part of a long essay I wrote on the Separation of Church and State.

6. The Identity of the United States and Christianity is intimately connected

Also, the Identity of the United States and Christianity is intimately connected. The United States was founded by people who were influenced by Protestantism and democratic principles. Whether or not the majority of Americans believed in Christianity or went to church, the values and principles of the people who crossed the Atlantic and founded America were based on Christianity. Even Montesquieu, who dealt much with politics, but didn’t touch on the importance of religion, stated that Protestantism was appropriate for a republic, Catholicism was appropriate for monarchism, and Islam was appropriate for despotism. We can only conclude that even people who regard religion insignificantly saw the importance of Christianity in the rise of modern Democracy. Today, there are great efforts to get rid of all traces of Christianity by banning prayer sessions, Bible sessions, chapel sessions and religious symbols such as the cross and the Ten Commandments in public. If all elements of Christianity are removed from America, democratic America will not be able to function socially or politically. It will be doing away with the essence of America.

For example, the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in America is based upon the idea that humans are inherently evil. It is a system made so that it would be possible for inherently evil humans to govern in a good way, which is the complete opposite of humanism which currently controls the whole of Europe. Humanists believe that humans are naturally good, but it is society that corrupts every human being. Thus, if we were to follow the humanist philosophy, there wouldn’t be any checks and balances, but people would place a conscious, good, capable, trustworthy, and untainted leader in power. The people would then defer their rights and power to this reliable leader and focus on their daily lives. However, this is not the reality in the leading countries today. Although they advocate humanism, believing that all humans are created equal, these leading countries are being run based on the teaching of the Bible that all humans are naturally evil (The foundation of these leading countries were formed long ago when all of Europe was Christian). Thus, the idea of separation of powers didn’t emerge from humanism but from Christianity which had been the backbone for the leading powers today. Eliminating Christianity completely will more than likely pave the way for a despot to emerge.

Likewise, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are based on Christian principles. A look at history quickly confirms this fact. How many non-Christian countries are there that allow freedom of speech or freedom of religion? The truth is there aren’t many. Although science and technology is rapidly advancing in this modern world, there are still many countries that persecute Christians and block its influence. Do any of those countries have freedom of religion or freedom of speech? Freedom of religion and freedom of speech is only possible under the teachings of Jesus who healed abandoned lepers, listened to adulterers and readily accepted children. Religions like Islam do not allow freedom. However, in a Christian church, members can express their opinions freely to church leaders. The fact that where Christianity is founded, Democracy is founded is not a coincidence. Democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of press is possible in America because of the Christian foundation of the founders of America. The American press for instance is able to criticize the government without fearing anything. We need to realize and acknowledge the benefits that we gain from Christianity. Majority rule also can very well turn into selfish oppression without Christianity.

For Democracy to work properly, the majority must know to consider the rights of the minority. Victimizing the minority in favor of the majority is not Democracy. For example, Japan’s government is based on democracy, but there are many people in Japan who don’t have the benefits that a Democratic country offers. The majority of Japanese sometimes victimize the minority and unite together, making an exclusive group and creating a sense of superiority. However, in America, the majority takes care of the minority and gives them rights. The difference between America and Japan is the religion. In America, most people believe in Christianity while in Japan, the majority believe in Shintoism or Buddhism. For the idea of majority rule to work, the mindset of the people is important, and it is religion that shapes this mindset. Religion also plays a big role in welfare and human rights. While the Islamic religion advocates good deeds such as helping the poor, they don’t treat their women as human beings, not giving them basic rights, and ignoring them. They persecute Christians who advocate kindness and mercy, considering them their enemies. On the other hand, why is America taking pains to make sure welfare benefits go to the minority and the less fortunate? Why does America give special attention to women’s rights and the comfort of the handicapped? Why is America providing such a complete freedom of religion for its people? This is not because the American people are naturally kinder than others. The answer can only be found in the Christian mindset of American people. They are following the example of Christ who helped and respected the oppressed and loved even the people who hated him, and are thus accepting the responsibility of helping the people more unfortunate than them. Therefore, American politics and Christianity have an inseparable relationship. If we remove Christianity from American politics, the very nature of America will change.

Separation of Church and State - Part 5

2008-02-14T10:35:00.000-08:00

I apologize for not having updated for a long time, but I am volunteering for Mike Huckabee's campaign and the past month has been such a busy and dizzy month. So here it is. This is the fifth part of a long essay I wrote on the Separation of Church and State.

5. Erroneous Ideology is Dangerous to Politics

Additionally, erroneous ideology is dangerous to politics. Many people criticize Christians for believing that only their religion is right and conclude that such narrow-minded “only I’m right” philosophy destabilizes our society. They even seem to believe that such ideology eventually give rise to terrorist attacks, and think that peace can be achieved only when we throw away the “I’m right” philosophy and tolerate other people’s beliefs. However, this is a simplistic and naïve thought. The problem of the Islamic fundamentalists lies in the fact that they do not realize the truth. The terrorists responsible for 9/11 believed that by killing innocent Americans, they would have a luxurious life in paradise and 70 virgins. They preached peace and truth when in reality, it was just a reason and a way of hurting others and obtaining their way to paradise. Although it looked like they were trying to follow the truth, erroneous ideology and sinful human desire pushed them to evil means such as terrorism. What is truly dangerous here are the ideologies that allow human nature and greed to run freely; not religion. Hitler had great influence over the world and terrorized it at one time. He was a man who believed in himself and a very dangerous ideology. The same goes for Kim Il Song, the former dictator of North Korea. Timothy McVeigh, the man who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma, was actually an agnostic who didn’t want to believe in anything. Also, terrorists like Bin Laden who planned the attacks on 9/11 didn’t attack America because of any religious beliefs, but simply used Islam as justification for their actions. Thus, we must be able to differentiate between religion and people’s greed under the cover of religion, and realize that religion is not the cause of the problem but the solution to such erroneous ideology. Religion, especially Christianity, creates good ideology that will benefit all and prevent erroneous ideology from taking root. Though it may seem like religion itself influenced government and politics in the past, the problems seemingly stemming from religion actually stemmed from people who used religion to enhance their own power and take control, replacing pure religion. Reliable religion is imperative in containing flawed and dangerous ideologies. Religion gives rise to constructive and reliable ideologies and prevents dangerous ideologies from emerging. For example, if Christianity in Germany had properly carried out their duty, such an evil man like Hitler would never have emerged and even if he had, the German people would never have listened to him. Thus, since bad influence comes from dangerous and unreliable ideology, instead of trying to block or contain religious influences, people should be encouraged and provided an environment where they can listen to the teachings of a proven reliable religion.

Separation of Church and State - Part 4

2008-01-05T14:56:00.000-08:00

This is the fourth part of a long essay I wrote on the Separation of Church and State.

4. A Religion like Christianity can not become institutionalized.

Furthermore, a religion like true Christianity can not become institutionalized. Many atheists worry about the institutionalization of Christianity. Protestantism, which has been the foundation and the cornerstone of America, has a much too individualistic and independent nature for it to become institutionalized. The Protestantism that took root from the Reformation stressed individual communication with God and also encouraged learning from the Bible and religious experience. Historical facts show that the people influenced by the Protestant Reformation helped the idea of democracy and freedom take root, ultimately helping cause political change. Christianity provided the basis for democracy. Had Christianity been institutionalized, there is no way that democracy could have taken root, so there is no cause to believe that Christianity and the government or politicians will create a mutual relationship and become integrated. Christians are affecting politics and government today, but it must be made clear that this influence is not happening through the church, a religious institution, but through individuals with the same beliefs. Voting results show that Christians don’t merely support a single party. If they do happen to support a party, this is because the ideology and the values of that particular party coincide with theirs. The 2006 Midterm Elections are a good example. The Christians are usually strong supporters of the Republican Party and are an important part of the party’s base. The Republican Party has always counted on the Christians. However, there happened to be many conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans running for office in the recent midterm elections and the Christian voters felt that their values and ideologies were more alike with the conservative Democrats than liberal Republicans. Thus, they voted for the Democratic candidates at the polls and the result turned out to be a big victory for the Democratic Party. Christians don’t vote to receive any special privileges for their churches, but rather base their decision on their own beliefs and values, because there is no hierarchy in a Christian (Protestant) Church. They don’t listen to a single leader, but vote according to their religious teachings, and as a result, Christians naturally vote the same way. As people who are supposed to live on the principle of love and sacrifice, if those Christians, as a group, only work for only their own gains, the group can no longer be a Christian group. Also, faulty perception of Christianity must not be made based on nominal Christians mistaken for true Christians. The history of Christianity shows us many people who called themselves Christians, but committed all kinds of sins and crimes, trying to rob, gain power, gain privileges, or gain credit. Many people believe that there are many church goers who act nothing like Christians, and mistakenly think all Christians do all sorts of radical and extreme things around the world. Based on these inaccurate perceptions, they argue that Christianity should have no hand in government and politics whatsoever. These people must be aware of how foolish and senseless their arguments are and realize that such irresponsible judgment do no good for America as a nation. We must realize the truth and not foolishly advocate only the reckless separation of church and state

2007-12-23T11:23:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas!

The Separation of Church and State - Part 3

2007-12-22T15:49:00.000-08:00

This is the third part of a long essay that I wrote on the Separation of Church and State.

3. Government and Religious Institutions Must be Separated

However, government and religious institutions must be separated. Religious institutions and government must be separated since its integration leads to danger and almost always ends in corruption of both the government and religion. History shows that when government and religious institutions are not separated, but are in each other’s service, the country quickly travels towards downfall. For example, the institutionalized Medieval Church and the king were not separated. When a new king sat on the throne, the church gave the king the power and the qualifications to be a king so that the people of the country wouldn’t dare rise up against the king. In return, as an efficient way to rule the kingdom, the kings declared one religion as the official religion of the country and helped the Church do religious activities without any problems by allowing only the religious institutions he approved to do any religious work. Through the help of the king, the church was able to achieve more power and gain privileges for themselves, and under this power, the people’s freedoms and rights were crushed. Thus, the problems and corruptions that seem to stem from religion is actually stem from corrupt religious institutions and corrupt politicians trying to use each other to benefit themselves. The Crusades or the Thirty Years War, widely known as religious wars, actually didn’t have much to do with religion. History shows us that it was the product of greed and a power struggle involving politicians, economists and clergymen, and people. For example, the Crusades started when King Alexius I of the Byzantine Empire asked Urban II, the pope of the Roman Empire for help. They rallied all of Europe with their appeal to recapture the holy land. Thus, it appears as if this war was fought for religion, but in actuality, it was a result of the combination of the pope’s wish for the expansion of his church and his political status, the king’s wish to claim his lands in the Byzantine territory (which had recently been lost to the Turks), and the European population’s greed for wealth and glory. The Thirty Years War was also on the surface, a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, but in reality it was a war for power disguised under the name of religion. Many problems that on the surface seemed to be purely religious problems were in reality a problem that arose from politicians and corrupted religious leaders creating a relationship to benefit from each other. We must learn from history and realize that what we should prevent is the integration of government and religious institutions. Also, we must understand the concept of “separation of church and state” in this historical context as well. Trying to accomplish the “separation of church and state” by removing religious symbols and expressions will only result in the “integration of atheism and state”. Trying to stop the spread of the teachings of a reliable and constructive religion will only create a dangerous situation for our society. Realizing this, it is necessary that we handle the issue of the “separation of church and state” very carefully.

The Separation of Church and State - Part 2

2007-12-19T19:14:00.000-08:00

This is the second part of a long essay that I wrote on the Separation of Church and State.

2. A Religion Cannot be Removed, Only Substituted For Another

Religion is also something that can’t be removed; only substituted with another, since a person’s life and religion is intimately connected. Religion is more than merely believing in the existence of a higher being, but living the religion and making it the basis of one’s life. Many people tend to believe that the boundaries of religion should be limited to its association with life after death. They try to restrict religion to such boundaries and feel that such restricting is possible. Just like our body and our mind can’t be separated, the spiritual and practical components of religion must always go together. Religion affects people’s beliefs and mindsets, so people’s life and actions which are affected by their mindset are also controlled by religion. Thus, it isn’t possible for there to be a religion separate from realistic life. No matter how much one tries to separate the two, it’s not possible. This goes for false believers, pagans, and all religions and beliefs. For example, a person who goes to church but lives completely separately from the Bible or God’s will is not a true Christian but still living by his or her own religion. No matter what religion it is, it is impossible to remove or eliminate religion, and even if one religion is removed, another religion will replace it immediately. Replacing a religion with Atheism is no different, as Atheism is simply another form of religion. Even a simple philosophy or idea can very well turn into a religion. Atheism has stepped over the boundary of a philosophy and is now acting as a “religion” that believes in “no religion or higher being”. If Christianity is removed and Atheism is introduced, a government controlled by a religion named “Atheism” will be realized. Many religions we know as religions today have stemmed from a philosophy. Communism is one such example. Communism started out rejecting any form of higher being, and focusing on a utopia made of workers. However, what was the result? In place of Christianity, a religion advocating Communism was formed and gave rise to people such as Lenin and Stalin. A philosophy transformed into a religion. Buddhism also started off as a philosophy of one person named Buddha, who preached his way of thinking to others, but as more religious elements started seeping in and taking root, it transformed into the Buddhism we know today. Thus, adhering to a philosophy eventually gives the philosophy the role of a religion, and eventually it actually becomes a religion. A look into the scientific areas reveals the fact that theories such as evolution have also become a religion in many ways, because pure science should be ready to accept faults and mistakes, searching for the truth about the wonders of this Earth. However, that is certainly not the attitude of evolutionists. Scientists who believe in evolution think that evolution is the only scientific truth and that creation is a religion and shouldn’t even be considered as science. Whenever they don’t have an answer or an explanation, the only answer they give is “we don’t have an explanation now but perhaps we will know in a few million years.” Is this science or religion? Now, Evolution has evolved into a religion. As seen, religion doesn’t require an existence of a higher being. People may choose to make and believe their own gods even it is not proven, and such is idol worshipping. People can even choose to idolize trees, reason, fads, or a certain ideology. Thus, any efforts to remove religion will become a futile mission. In conclusion, removing Christianity won’t eliminate religion. Another religion will come to replace it, and in place of Christianity, idols, fads, philosophy and ideas will evolve into religion and take root. Today, there are many people who argue that religion and government must be separated, but if this truly happens, they will only be replacing Christianity with a religion called Atheism. If removing religion is what they want, they will fail and only succeed in founding a government controlled by a religion called Atheism. In this regard, there is a lot to learn from the process of Russia’s communization. Religion, the royalty, and the aristocracy became corrupted in Russia which was a Christian country. However, what was the result of throwing away Christianity and accepting Communism? The result was the blood of millions of Russian people in the process, and such bloodshed should be enough to show how imprudent and juvenile, trying to remove Christianity is. People must change their negative attitude about religion. Getting rid of religion is impossible anyways, so we should stop destructive and pessimistic religions, and not ignore religions that have proven to be positive and constructive, accepting the ideas, values, and views of such religions.

The Separation of Church and State - Part 1

2007-12-15T19:00:00.000-08:00

This is the first part of a long essay that I wrote on the Separation of Church and State. I have inserted headers for each section so that the main point of each part of my essay is clear. The other parts of the essay will be up soon.

Religion, especially Christianity, has been an integral part of America ever since it was founded in the late 1700s. Our founding fathers have written the Constitution to ensure religious freedom for all Americans. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The concept of separation of church and state has become an important and popularized interpretation of the Establishment clause in the First Amendment, but amidst controversy about the issue today, there are some points that we must make clear about the issue of the separation of church and state.

1. The Separation of Religion and Government is Impossible

The first idea to consider in solving this issue of separation of church and state is that government and religion are inseparable. In one of the most dramatic scenes from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, when Shylock, a Jewish moneylender, plans to take revenge by taking a pound of flesh from Antonio, Portia, acting as a judge responds by saying,

Tarry a little. There is something else.
This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood.
The words expressly are “a pound of flesh.”
Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh,
But in the cutting it if thou dost shed
One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
Are by the laws of Venice confiscate
Unto the state of Venice.
(IV.i.318-325)

Shylock admits defeat at Portia’s demand that he not shed any blood and take exactly one pound of flesh. What made Shylock admit defeat? His defeat can only be attributed to the fact that flesh and blood are inseparable. The same goes for government and religion. Just like blood goes with flesh, government goes with religion and the two are intertwined in such a way that they are inseparable. Religion is an integral part of the life of every human being and is furthermore, the foundation for it. Thus, religion influences everything from science and philosophy to economy and human relationships, and it is impossible to remove such influence of religion. Many scientists today tend to ignore and ridicule religion, but they don’t realize that Christian religion is what essentially provided the environment and mindset for science to flourish. This is something that world history tells us. People may argue that Christianity actually represses science, pointing to the Middle Ages. Although science was indeed repressed in the Middle Ages, which is considered a Christian era, the Church in the Middle Ages was corrupted beyond repair and cannot be truly categorized as fundamentally Christian. However, science flourished after the Reformation era when the church was reformed. Reformation brought forth the Renaissance era, which is usually associated with the advancement of science. It is clear that although it may seem like this advancement was a result of a break from religion, one look at the history of the world and its timeline makes it clear that the Reformation allowed the science, art, music, and enlightenment associated with the Renaissance period to flourish. A look at some of the world’s most renown scientists also makes this message clear. Isaac Newton, considered one of the most important scientists of all times made many important contributions to the world; one of them being his laws of universal gravitation and motion. Where would Newton have gotten his enthusiasm and curiosity for science and mathematics? Newton once said “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” His strong Christian belief was the basis for his important scientific contributions to the world, and the advancement of the scientific world came from Christians such as him. “Mechanical advancement” from experience may be possible even under a religion that idolizes nature, but “Scientific advancement” from experiments and inquiries based on reasoning and faith would not have been possible. For example, if scientists didn’t have the faith that the universe was made in an orderly fashion by God, modern scientists might have been kneeling under trees and praying to the trees to make their wish come true. Therefore, scientists must understand that Christianity, which provides the way for them to govern and control our universe, is their scientific root and foundation. Religion also influences economics. Religion has the ability to stimulate the economy into growth, or lead the economy into a recession. Religion makes people either respect economic practices or look down upon it, because religious concepts influence people’s economic philosophy and economic activities. Intellectual economists don’t emerge from religious societies such as the Confucianist societies that believe that the poor are all good and the rich are all evil. Christians on the other hand, don’t see the rich as evil and thus encourage people to use wealth as a tool to stimulate the economy and serve less fortunate people.

Naturally, not only does religion shape economics, but it also shapes people’s political ideology. Humans aren’t programmed to think and act a certain way, unlike animals, so education is vital in shaping the ideology, values, ideas, and attitudes of humans. Religion shapes what’s most important in humans; one’s character and personality. In one word, religion shapes one’s humanity. Thus, the religion that a person believes in is bound to have a direct effect on the person’s politics. For instance, India is a democratic country, but India’s social structure is based upon the cast system, stemming from their Hinduism. Many Indian intellectuals say that Hinduism is the most important road block to the advancement of India. For example, Hinduism prevents anyone from killing cows, so cows may walk around in the middle of the street, making transportation very complicated and difficult. However, Democracy was founded on Christian principles, which values the life of one man more than anything. Wherever, Christianity was established, totalitarianism was destroyed and in its place came democracy and the message of equality and freedom. Christianity not only founded Democracy but is still an integral part of Democratic principles that all Americans value and hold dear. We must realize that the society and the political order of a country are determined by the religion that influences that country and deal with the matter of separation of church and state very seriously.

Academic Freedom

2007-12-08T22:04:00.000-08:00

This is not a focused article, but rather a sectionalized response to an opinion article in the New University (UC Irvine student newspaper) and should be treated as such. Each paragraph of my article is a response to different sections of the article "Purging the University of Thinkers" and therefore, the article should be read before reading my response.

The New University (UC Irvine student newspaper) ran an article named “Purging the University of Thinke rs” (Dec 3 issue). The author claims that “there is a chill over open-mindedness and critically-thinking academics. I would say there is too much warmth toward the so-called “open-mindedness” and “critical-thinking.” Has anyone ever thought about the fact that virtually all professors are liberal or extremely liberal. Liberal students as well as professors actually have a great advantage over conservatives in American universities while conservatives are ridiculed. It has come to the point that for many classes, you have to be willing to face some consequences grade-wise (although professors do say that political viewpoints and ideologies will not affect anyone’s grade) if you are going to write a paper with a conservative viewpoint. Just ask some of the conservative students at any college or even high school for that matter. They have to write a much better paper and put more work in to receive a the same grade as a paper with a liberal viewpoint.

The article states that “The government and Murdoch, who owns a large portion of the “news” we receive, have to create a hysterical fear in us to further their agenda of war and corporate empire,” and claims that in order to do that “First, they create a panic situation. Every Muslim or Arab becomes an “Other”—a mysterious, irrational, out-of-control, less-than-human being to which “we” are not supposed to relate. Think about it. In the last six years, how many images of Muslim or Arab families going to the park have been shown in the media? How many images of Muslim or Arab families eating at home to save money are shown on corporate-controlled television? Now contrast that with the images in which a Muslim or Arab is shouting, running through a street, holding a weapon or looking angry in an active role instead of a calm, rational role.” The author seems to believe there is no such thing or should be such a thing as a War on Terror and this is simply the way for the Bush Administration to instill fear into Americans and further their “empire”. Unlike the author’s belief, not everyone in this world is kind-hearted and peaceful as he is. That would be wonderful, but it is a naïve and unrealistic thought. No matter how much we deny it, there are groups of people such as the terrorists (who do happen to be Muslims) that Americans must fear. These people want America destroyed simply for the fact that America represents freedom for all and the only way to keep ourselves safe from them is to fight the War on Terror (No, it has nothing to do with the fact that we are seen as an occupying force. To those people who think the radicals will leave us alone if we leave them alone, may I remind you that their deep hatred for America started long before we became an “occupying force”. Their hatred is simply being outwardly expressed now and leaving them alone till the situation is uncontrollable is not wise. The reason we have such problems with the terrorists and the Middle East is because we have neglected to solve the brewing problem in the Middle East). The Bush Administration and especially the media are not trying to instill fear against the Muslims or any other group of people for that matter. It just so happens that many of the terrorists who want to destroy us come from a Muslim background.

Unlike the author’s claim, the media is very biased not toward conservatism but liberalism if that hasn’t been noticed. For example, the news media fails to report the positive changes that are happening in Iraq, only reporting the number of people who died and manage to put a pessimistic view even on the increased security in Iraq since the surge. Such reporting from the media has completely turned the American people against the war. Many soldiers who are actually fighting in Iraq feel that the Iraq that is being reported and the Iraq that they are seeing is completely different. The Perhaps the reason why there aren’t any images of the Muslims going to the park is because those Muslims are not very visible or vocal, and the visible Muslims are the radical Muslims who do blow up buildings and wield weapons. Also, the only time the media has really shown images that shed Muslims in a negative light were right after 9/11 when they showed images of some Muslims rejoicing about the tragedy inside various mosques in America (the media quickly stopped showing them due to their fear that showing such images were “politically incorrect”). I haven’t seen such images since.

The author also implies that anyone who criticizes President Bush is being vilified in American universities. On the contrary, maybe the author hasn’t been keeping up with latest popular trends, but in case he hasn’t noticed, criticizing President Bush is quite the popular thing to do these days. People who actually dare agree with President Bush are actually the ones who are vilified and categorized as “non-thinkers”. They cannot believe that some people “actually think” for themselves and will not jump on the war-opposing and Bush-bashing bandwagon (Ironically, liberals accuse conservatives for jumping on the Bush/War bandwagon when there really is no bandwagon to jump on).

Simply questioning the government isn’t wrong. It’s when the “critical-thinking” and “questioning” goes beyond being constructive and helpful to America but becomes destructive and divisive that it becomes wrong. We always have to look at ourselves in the mirror and check to see if there is anything wrong. We always have to fix disheveled hairs but no one ever does that by hitting himself or herself over the head with a hammer. This is exactly what is happening. If Americans had been united on the War in Iraq instead of being busy criticizing our motives for starting the war, we would very likely have had stability in the region a long long time ago. Whether or not you believe we should have gone to war, the war was started. The one thing we must if we go into a war is win and winning is the only way out. A divided country, however, cannot win a war.

Finally, it is flattering that conservatives are now deemed “clever” after having been called stupid and non-thinking for such a long time. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the reason the conservative voice isn’t heard as much as the liberal voice is because we are not given the equal opportunity to do so? Also, we are defenders of academic freedom and individual rights, unlike what the author believes. Perhaps the ones who are truly masking themselves under the name of academic freedom and individual rights are liberals (they also “cleverly” mask themselves under the name of “peace” and “civil liberties” and it’s sad that most Americans are falling for it). Not that the author would believe anything a conservative says. If liberals do happen to support “academic freedom” and “individual rights,” make sure conservative speakers have a right to speak at universities without having insults hurled at them or fearing for their lives. A black conservative, Star Ledger, was shouted-down when she went to speak at Penn State, cutting her speech short. I wonder if this happens to liberals. Contrary to the author’s beliefs, liberals seem to be on a “Mc-Carthy style” hunt to stop any professors who disagree with them and support Bush. Liberal professors are not the ones being denied tenure. Conservative professor James D. Miller, who is an economics professor at Smith College was denied tenure because some faculty members felt that his belief that there isn’t much academic freedom in universities was “disturbing” even though his students contend that he teaches so clearly and approaches his material in such a way that motivates them and interests them in economics. They say that although he is controversial, he brings “thinking” and debate into the class which adds greatly to it. It’s hypocritical that liberals seem to want academic freedom as long as it only pertains to them, and such freedom doesn’t extend to conservatives. Count how many conservative professors there are at UCI. If you truly want to “think critically,” having some conservatives on campus shouldn’t hurt but rather make you actually “think”.

Education, Not Racism

2007-12-04T15:53:00.000-08:00

The New University (UC Irvine student newspaper) ran a commentary article named “Rich Use Racism to Divide” (Oct 22 issue). Such articles reinforce the necessity of the “Islamo-Facism Awareness Week”. When exactly has advocating our national security and speaking out against radicals who wish to destruct our country become “racism” and discriminatory? “Islamo-Facism Awareness Week” is most definitely not based on the belief that we are somehow superior to Muslims and definitely do not seek to discriminate against them. “Islamo-Facism Awareness Week” is not “a deliberate effort to incite hate”, but rather an appeal to people to face the truth and pay attention to what is going on in the world outside the United States. This paying attention also means recognizing that radical Muslim terrorists, not peaceful Muslims present a problem to the security of not only the United States, but also the world.

The article states that “in reality, there is no such thing as a “war on terror”—instead, there is a war of terror launched by the United States for oil profits and empire.” The authors seem to believe that everyone in this world is kind-hearted and peaceful as they are, but that is a naïve and unrealistic thought. No matter how much we deny it, there are people who want America destroyed simply for the fact that America represents freedom for all (No, it has nothing to do with the fact that we are seen as an occupying force. To those people who think the radicals will leave us alone if we leave them alone, may I remind you that their hatred for America started long before we became an “occupying force”. Their hatred is simply being outwardly expressed now.) Also, the claim that America is fighting the war on terror for oil is a misconception. The United States is not gaining oil profits from the war on terror (America would never have started the war on terror if it wanted oil profits) and America certainly is not building an empire with any of the countries where we have “occupying forces.”

The authors of the article speak of internationalism, but it is ironic how “international unity” is dividing America rather than nationalism, and I would even argue that nationalism has almost disappeared in America today. “International unity” is impossible to achieve and unrealistic no matter how much everyone wants it. Every country has its own national interests. To think that any country would put aside its national interest for the sake of international unity and peace is naïve. When push comes to shove, most people would more likely try to gain profit rather than save a friendship (of course unless that said friendship would profit the person). Similarly, it is inevitable that every country fight for their own interests, beliefs, and benefits.

Instead of criticizing the motives of the “Islamo-Facism Awareness Week” before it has even started, take the time to actually listen to the message that the week wants to spread. You will find that the message is not hateful or discriminatory like popular perception seems to think it is, but truthful and unifying.