Freedom of Religion

     

         

        I read up on a recent Democratic debate where Religion was not mentioned once. Actually it was, it was mentioned at the end, and that was to make a point that Religion was not mentioned. That mention came from former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley. This is what he said: "What you heard tonight...was a very, very different debate than from the sort of debate you heard from the two presidential Republican debates...on this stage, you didn't hear anyone denigrate women, you didn't hear anyone make racist comments about new American immigrants, you didn't hear anyone speak ill of another American because of their religious belief. What you heard instead on this stage tonight was an honest search for answers that will move our country forward..."

       The fallacy I find here is that when the former governor was speaking he was implying that the Republicans are doing this, and this would imply all republicans and generalizing that his party is the way to go. He is saying look at us as an example because we don't do bash on religion nor other controversy's at all, when in turn him saying this is putting Republicans down in the first place. 

       Another Fallacy that I find with this article is that it is projected on Christiantoday.com. This site has mostly Christian viewers and with this type of posting they are painting a picture of "who the democrats really are" in eyes of the Christians. They were leading with the title "God does not get mentioned in the the 2016 presidential debate".

      Our society has gotten too hung up on the Freedom of Religion notion that we forget that this involves and protects individuals that do not believe in god. When one says religion, you can guess that 99.97% of the time that they believe in some form of a god. People tend to only group individuals who believe in god, period and exclude those that do not believe in god, or do not express it as much. 

       When referring to Freedom of Religion you get into the topics of abortion and same sex marriage etc. These topics get heated because of the many different morals and belief systems in the United States. If Freedom of Religion can be redefined than a lot of these problems would not be as controversial or even exist. My belief is that this is why this topic is being brought up and fought over so much. 

       I believe that this will always be a continuous battle. There is know possible way that this can stop unless it is by complete unity and trust in one another. We have such different values and morals and ethic/culture backgrounds that this would be a very large feat to overcome. 

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/god.doesnt.get.a.mention.in.the.democrat.presidential.debate/67613.htm

       

Religion

When reading the article "A Born Again Donald Trump" it talks to you about Donald's history of being a Christian. It tells you that he is what they refer to as a baby -Christian.  In the past Donald Trump has used language and also actions that have led others to think otherwise. This article was based off an interview that was with Rev. Michael Anthony and Dr. Dobson. These two individuals stated that Trump in the beginning stages of Christianity cannot be expected to be farther along than others nor speak their language. I understand that when someone is starting something that we all have to start somewhere and we are all at different levels. As explained in the article by Dr. Dobson. What I find to be Fallacious about the article is here you have a Reverend and also another Pastor who are here to "lead others unto Christ". Dr. Dobson mentioned in the interview: "Mr. Trump did not exactly fit the typical mold of an evangelical. He used the word ‘hell’ four or five times,” he said. “He doesn’t know our language.” He added that Mr. Trump “refers a lot to religion and not much to faith and belief.” I am not sure if this is just me or not but it seems like the Pastor is talking down to Trump as the baby Christian he says he is and not treating him as an equal. I guess the point I am trying to get across is that here in this interview it sounds more like ranks or skill level of advancing that one must make within the religion to gain that respect of "knowing god". What I have understood from those that believe in god is that we are all equal in his eyes. I think that this back fires on them and invalidates their own argument just in the manner that they explain themselves and justify why Trump is that way he is. 

I can see also how the Reverend and Pastor want to defend Trump. I can see a couple of reasons why they would want to do something like this:

1: Because Trump can pay a big tithe.

2: Because they also are supposed to be there to give hope and be optimistic of change, in this case, that Trump can become a better Christian. 

Line of Reasoning...

       The argument and also fallacy found in this article states, "Most people will agree that the SEC is the most dominant conference in the country and has been now for many years" (Referring to college football). 

        The Argument of Fact is that in college football you have a bowl system that is set up to separate the 100+ competing teams into conferences. Those conferences play each other throughout the season and the winners of those conferences will then play in contending bowl games that have their individual rankings of importance. How the system currently plays out is to get into a bowl game you really don't have to have a stellar season. Teams that are only breaking 500 in the season are getting into bowl games playing teams that have done substantially better then they. How does this happen? 

       The individual conferences are set up for power and strength. Power and strength of team is judged on many levels in college football. The University could have a long football history, money and funding from the boosters, a coach with knowledge that is known for his recruiting techniques, and also the fan base. These variables help coaches to bring higher caliber players to their individual programs. 

       The Argument of Value in this article states that "the BCS is supposed to be in place to avoid these types of situations. Who really is the best team in the nation? "

       The Argument of Policy in the BCS and how the rules are set up state that "To qualify for the BCS National Championship Game you must come from a conference that has a conference championship game." 

       Finding and Using Evidence that maybe the BCS is not the best option to decide who the best team is was with a regular season game with LSU and Alabama where LSU won and then you see them meet again in the national title game. "So, we now have two SEC teams playing for the BCS National Championship. That is great, great for the schools and great for the conference. But has anyone asked, “What is going to happen if Alabama wins the rematch?” They have already lost to LSU during the regular season at home. If LSU loses, are they going to get to play Alabama again, best two out of three? Will the BCS award their title to Alabama, while the AP (another ranking system) awards their title to LSU? The BCS is supposed to be in place to avoid these types of situations. Who really is the best team in the nation? This year we may never know. One thing is for sure; the SEC looks to be on top of the college football world, again.

       Fallacies include the BCS system automatically suggests that through "Power rankings" that they can determine who the best team in college football is without physically having those two teams play each other. They automatically say that one opponent in a conference is better than another in an opposing conference with a better record. These situations now are more common on the college football stage. 

       I recommend a playoff system with ultimately 16 of the best teams in the nation. This would be similar to a March Madness. Make a team the is "weaker" according to conference labeling play a "better" team 1-2 or even three times to show their caliber. Then if they make it, we have done a better job of vetting these teams than merely saying who has the deepest pockets. 

Was justice served?

Was justice served?
 In this case I feel that justice has been served and will continue to be served throughout Brock's life and also throughout judge Persky's life. The perspective I am coming from is that this is a 21 year old student who has no previous crimes and let himself go and made some bad judgments. Unfortunately these actions that Brock took part in are going to serve him a far greater sentence with this blow up in the social media. This will affect him with future employment and naysayers will continue to pop up throughout his life. The same thing will happen with the judge, he is already feeling it from pressure from his own colleagues that sit in on his cases because they do not want to be affiliated with him. I agree with the Judges thoughts when he said a sentencing this severe can greatly affect his life. The only thing that will not lie is time. We will see if the three years probation will of helped Brock out or not.

Is Turner the victim of social shaming?
Turner is the the victim of social shaming. This is something that he has brought upon himself. Some might say that Social Shaming can be worse than probation, maybe even a sentence. Social Shaming takes the situation out to thousands and sometime millions more people that would normally see it. More content is created and people are easily defamed causing problems for them in everyday life. Brock will receive ridicule on the streets, his social media outlets and also discrimination from interviewers when he is looking for a job.

Can the system mete out true justice for victims of sexual assault?
After all is said and done, what is true justice? Everyone's definition will be different. This case and the attention it is receiving is a solid piece of evidence of this.

Civil Rights

After reading the article I get that people are fighting for their "rights" to be who they feel they are, man or woman. I realize that this country was founded with Freedom and the pinnacle of making us so great. I can respect people's decisions to do what they want, until that infringes on my personal freedom or the freedom of my family. The question that needs to be posed is. Where did the transgender individuals go to the bathroom before? This has been around for a while and now that people are more aware of it they don't like the idea. Well these transgender's did not have a choice to be born this way. Now it is another issue when you have people CHOOSING who they want to be. This raises my eyebrows and does not sit well with me.