Evolution vs. Religion

I literally raised my eyebrows when I saw this poll: In 2010, 38% of the questioned people strongly agreed that the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Maybe this had to do with the fact that only 23% thought that freedom of religion was protected by the First Amendment. Either way, these are totally conflicting ideals. It appears as though every specific right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment is extremely ambiguous. I believe that the uncertainty of these rights, freedom of religion in particular, causes people to suppress their real religious views. But, what happens when the debate is now not about any specific religion, but bringing any religion into schools. There have been many controversies about the extent that religion should be allowed to be practiced or talked about in schools, but there has been countless instances concerning evolution vs. religion.

I read the article "Darwin at 200: Still controversial after all these years". It discussed the longstanding debate over the creation of life, and well, everything. Since no one can yet prove which theory is correct, the government has tried a couple different approaches. I think that the most successful way to approach this issue is by creating a healthy balance between the two. The teacher, when talking about creation, would introduce both ideas (while remaining unbiased the whole time). Then, they would discuss the fact that as of today, both theories are equally correct. I believe that not discussing religion when talking about creation is wrong, but I do not think that students should be taught that one way is correct and the other is not. Teaching both ideas should be considered legal and not violating a student's freedom of speech.

What Does It Take To Bring NYC together?

I thought that it was absolutely astonishing to witness the attack on the Twin Towers from a New Yorker's point of view and see the wild and diverse city come together.

Watching the buildings actually fall down was something that I had never seen before. I was in 3rd grade on this particular September 11th, so I did not understand the full extent to what had just happened. Nevertheless, it had affected me. But, it did not affect me nearly as much as it did to New Yorkers. Seeing the city and people covered in debris was very strange. It was hard to see so many people grieving and looking for their loved ones.

The scene in the film that struck me the most was when many people gathered around what someone wrote on the sidewalk with chalk. Arguments were breaking out EVERYWHERE. People were fighting about invading Afghanistan, using nuclear weapons, keeping the peace, etc. It was so surprising to see all of these people, who probably would never have met each other, feel so passionate about an issue. It was amazing to see one man and one woman who were going at it begin to realize the others' opinion. The woman explained to the furious man that everyone was scared and everyone was in this together. They ended up hugging it out (two random people, might I add) and smiling. It is so crazy to me that even people with views on total opposite ends of the spectrum can end up hugging. They were not arguing about gay marriage, they were arguing about the usage of nuclear weapons. It is strange that something as massive and tragic as September 11th can bring the most different people together.

What Gives People the Right to Limit Our Speech?

Some would argue that speech codes are the ultimate denial of human rights. A little extreme? Perhaps. Others would say that speech codes are a necessary addition to university/school policies because they protect individuals from unnecessary hate speech or violence.

But, in a democratic society, who has the right to say what we can and cannot do or say? The First Amendment is so ambiguous; there are so many holes that people can find, but the government leaves you to figure out what is applicable. That is why speech codes can be helpful because they act as a clarification of how things are interpreted on a given campus, for example. Speech codes provide an individual with all of the information that the First Amendment was unwilling to give out. Plus, who really wants to go to a party and watch drunken fraternities simulate the lynching of blacks?

While some may argue that speech codes extremely limit our free expression, I think that it is very reasonable to say that they explain the unwritten, "gray area" of the First Amendment. Without speech codes, many students would be concerned about their safety, and there would be a lot more tension. The First Amendment is does not fully take people's emotions into consideration, so speech codes are there to protect the well-being of each student.