Thursday, October 9, 2014

A Daughter's Perspective



          Police officers, Firefighters, and Paramedics, all have one thing in common, they are first responders, who put their life at risk each and everyday for the good of other people.  For the first fifteen years of my life, my dad got up each morning, put on his uniform, and badge and left for work.  When police officers leave their house in the morning, they have no idea what challenges they are going to face that day, or if they will return home that night.  They have lots of training, but when faced with dangerous situations they are forced to make split second decisions.  Even a routine traffic stop can turn into on of the most dangerous situations.   So, when I heard on the news that a family was suing two police officers in Indiana for using excessive force, it disheartened me. Why do people have so little respect for police officers?
            Last month officers Lt. Patrick Vicari and Sgt. Charles Turner pulled over a vehicle in Hammond, Indiana, because they noticed the driver and the passenger were not wearing their seatbelts.  The driver, Mahone refused to roll the windows of the vehicle down when the officers approached the car and on top of that she would not show identification, but later showed identification off camera.  When the officers asked the passenger, Jones, for identification, he did not have I.D. with him and refused to write his name down on a piece of paper.  Apparently, he remembered he had his name on a traffic violation ticket in the back seat, and without telling police, he turned and reached for the ticket.  The police officers could not see what he was doing, fearing he was reaching for a weapon; they broke the window and shot him with a stun gun.  Now, a month later Jones is suing the two police officers.  If he and his girlfriend would have shown some respect and followed directions, they could have avoided the whole situation. 
            Do police officers have too much power and authority?  How can we assure they   always use it appropriately?  Should police officers knowingly be able to put themselves in a dangerous situation, then harm that person and call it self-defense?  My dad was a police officer for many years, and most of his friends are also cops.  Growing up around police officers, and seeing them in a work and home environment, I have a strong respect for them and everything they do.  Other people also should have a strong respect and healthy fear for police officers.  They are the people that keep you safe, they walk into a building with a gun man to help hostages escape, they run out in the middle of traffic to pickup big pieces of garbage, and they park their vehicles in dangerous places to block traffic where a car accident has occurred.  They are also the people who write you a ticket for speeding, running a red light, and having a tail light out, but they do this out of concern for safety of you and others.  When they pull you over, they approach a vehicle not knowing who is inside or if they are armed and dangerous.  This is why Lt. Patrick Vicari and Sgt. Charles Turner acted like they did, and when Jones turned to get his parking ticket, they still had no idea who he was; he could have been someone that was armed and dangerous.  So, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that Jones is suing the police officers for excessive force.  What were they supposed to do, wait until Jones had a gun pointed at them to take the kind of action they did?  Jones claims his civil rights were infringed upon, but how?  Does he think this happened because he was African American?  Ultimately, it comes down to him not wanting to do what the police officers asked of him and now he will not take responsibility for his action. He believes the officers owe him, but for what, protecting themselves?  I feel like they are looking for deep pockets and easy money. 
      Now let’s say, someone breaks into Jones’ home, who do you think he is going to call?  He will call the police, probably the same department that Lt. Patrick Vicari and Sgt. Charles Turner work for.  Jones would want the police officers to do everything they could to get that person out of his house even if that meant shooting that person with a stun gun.  But what if the police officers said, “Oh no we can not do that because we might get sued”.  Do we want our police officers thinking about if they would get sued or not before they protect themselves or others?  As a daughter of a police officer, I do not want them thinking about getting sued first; I want them to do whatever they need to do to protect themselves and others, and I am sure many other sons and daughters of police officers feel the same way. At the end of the day we just want our parent’s home safe.            

Thursday, October 2, 2014

"Yes means Yes'



Rape seems to be a popular topic across all college campuses, but especially in California.  It means “the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.”[1]  “No means No” has been the popular slogan for many years, this phrase was supposed to protect individuals from unwanted sex.  Yes of course, it did save some people, but now the State of California has come up with a new bill and slogan to help prevent rape.
“The California Legislature passed a bill that requires any college that is receiving state-financed student aid to change their policy from “No means No” to “Yes means Yes”.[2]  How exactly does changing a phrase help prevent rape?  “Yes means Yes”, “Now places the burden on the student initiating sex to obtain a “yes,” rather than on the intended partner to convey a “no.”[3]  According to the new law anyone who is drugged, drunk, or unconscious can not consent, and lack of resistance does not count as a yes.  It must be a verbal yes.  Recently, a new app was launched called Good 2 Go, that documents the affirmative consent.  Requirements of the new law compel, “Colleges to provide victims with confidential reporting, counseling and access to a victim advocate. Campus officials investigating rape complaints will have to undergo trauma-based training, too.”[4]
This new law sounds ideal and perfect, but will it actually work?  I have my doubts and so do many others.  Most of the time, when a rape occurs alcohol is a contributing factor effecting one or both parties.  If both partners are drunk is one really more responsible than the other?  Then later if the victim comes forward and says they were raped, how do they prove it?  It still ultimately comes down to her word against his.  Honestly, I feel the government is wasting the tax payers money enacting this new law “Yes means Yes”, when it is going to have approximately the same affect as the “No means No” law.  I believe they should put their resources toward the origin of the problem, and have laws about parties serving alcohol on campus.  Obviously, no matter how many laws or different kinds of laws the government makes, the problem will always still be there because most college kids feel it is their right of passage to party.  But the “No means No” law would work a lot better if the two people were not in an alcoholic fog.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

A Practice Against The Hippocratic Oath



Dr. Willie Parker is an African American Doctor who claims to be a Christian, and yet performs thousand of abortions.  Dr. Parker was raised by a single mother and was the second youngest son out of six.  He grew up living in a house without electricity, with an outhouse as the only bathroom, and his only food was provided by food stamps.  He later became the first black student-body president at a white dominated school, and went on to become an obstetrician graduating from Harvard.  For years Dr. Parker delivered thousands of healthy babies a year and refused to perform abortions because it was simply against his beliefs.  Unfortunately his beliefs have changed, leaving babies to suffer the consequences. 
            Dr. Parker is one of two abortion doctors working at the last abortion clinic (known as the Pink House) in Mississippi.  “This is because no doctor in Mississippi is willing to provide such a service. Although the state already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, including a twenty-four-hour waiting period, parental consent, face-to-face counseling with the physician, and a ban on the use of Medicaid funding (except in extraordinary cases).”[1]  Because of these strict laws it has decreased the number of abortions in the state of Mississippi.
            Dr. Parker visits Mississippi for days at a time. On the first day he meets with four different groups of women and hands out the required information. He persuades them to have an abortion and tells them it is morally okay even if you are a Christian.  He goes on to inform them that others do not know what they are going through unless they have had an abortion.  He answers question and makes jokes whenever he can.  Before they leave, if they still want an abortion, he sets up a time for the next day where he can meet with his patients individually.  When he is done meeting with the women individually, he makes an appointment, usually within the next couple of days, for them to come back and have an abortion.  Once the abortion is over with he rarely sees his patients again unless they come back to volunteer. 
            In America or really any country, there are other options besides abortion.  So, why do so many people choose abortion?  I believe, they think it is the easier way out.  They made a mistake and that is their way of fixing “the problem” without having to carry the baby and ruin their bodies, or make sacrifices to raise the child.  It takes away the embarrassment and they can act as if it never happened, not having to face anybody.  Abortion not only kills the unborn baby, but it also harms the mother, “It is antithetical to a genuine feminism — one that recognizes and celebrates the uniqueness of women as women.”[2]  Growing up in the Roman Catholic Church this is what I was taught “Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.”[3]  I believe that abortion is wrong, no matter the reason or circumstances. 

Thursday, September 11, 2014

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Banned



           Have you ever wondered what it would be like to go to foreign country where you could not walk freely into a church and worship God?  Well you do not have to even leave the country to feel the same kind of persecution.  Recently the California University system has denied Christians the right to have Christian organizations or clubs on campus.  Making the twenty-seven California college campuses much like a closed country.  Closed countries are “Countries that limit or prevent Christian ministry by expatriates as missionaries.”[1] 
            The reason this topic has become such a big issue is because they banned InterVarsity Christian Fellowship from not just one but all of California’s Colleges.  “We are not talking about a private university – we are talking about America’s largest network of public universities.”[2]  College is a time where countless young adults go “crazy”, but it is also a time where many come to find God.  If Christian organizations are not on college campuses spreading the word of God there will be less people that come to know God.  The people in college now are the leaders of our country, churches, and schools tomorrow.  Can you imagine our country completely run by non-believers? 
            “InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA has been active on U.S. college and university campuses for more than 73 years.  InterVarsity is affiliated with the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES), and is a charter member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA).”[3]   Last year InterVarsity had nine-hundred and forty nine chapters with over forty thousand members.  Now you are probably wondering what caused The California University system to deny InterVarsity Christian Fellowship the right to be on campuses.  The California University system believes, “while InterVarsity invites and welcomes all students as participants, we believe a Christian group should have the right to expect and even require their leaders to be Christian—just as any student group, club or Greek organization should be able to require their leaders to be like-minded.”[4]  Although InterVarsity is no longer an official organization they are coming up with a creative new style of campus ministry.  
Last week Adreanna mentioned in her blog that her sister was in the organization Empowered Arab Sisterhood, they allow all girls to join but you must actually be Arab to receive a leadership position.  Why is this group any different than the InterVarsity Christian group?  To be able to run Christian group you must actually be a Christian.  I do not understand why this concept is so difficult.  It is like a plain M&M, you can all be different on the outside but you must have the same beliefs (chocolate) on the inside to be in a leadership position.

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Polygamy



           Polygamy is, “the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time” (Google).  “During the mid-1800’s Mormon polygamy was revealed to Joseph Smith (leader and creator of the Mormon religion) as a true mandate from God. Mormons then began practicing polygamy in the United States and sending the message throughout the world with their missionaries.  Soon the Federal government told Mormon leaders that they would lose statehood, if they chose to continue living with multiple wives.  On September 25, 1890, Mormon leadership surrendered and proclaimed from the pulpit the end of plural marriages. Since then it has continued to thrive outside the mainstream Mormon Church.”[1]  In September of 1890 polygamy was officially illegal in the United States.
            Last year in the U.S District Court in Utah, a ruling on whether polygamy would be legalized was put on hold.  But on August 27, 2014 the same judge ruled against polygamy.  Since then, U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups administered that this ruling was against the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of religion.  This comes shortly after Kody Brown; (star of TLC’s Sister Wives) filed a lawsuit against the state of Utah, stating that his family had to move because they feared persecution.  Why would the Brown family only fear persecution in Utah if polygamy is illegal in all fifty states?  Well, because most states do not care if you only have one legal marriage and the rest are “spiritual unions”, but Utah is saying all polygamy is wrong.  Also, what leads people to believe that polygamy is morally acceptable?  Are they forgetting about the seventh commandment?  ”Thou shall not commit adultery.”  They think as long as “the persons involved in any sexual relationship are consenting adults, and then there is understood to be no moral problem whatsoever.”[2]  So then if two people agree to a duel, is it ok for one of them to kill the other?  Just because consenting adults agree on an issue does not make their choices’ legal or ethical.
            Polygamy is not the only controversy happening in the courts of Utah, same sex marriage is also a popular topic.  Back in 2008 when Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8 in California by saying, “that it was a form of oppression and discrimination to prevent members of the same-sex, in this case a couple of the same-sex, from getting married and enjoying the legal and societal recognition benefits of marriage.”[3]  So now Utah is having the same dilemma, not only with same sex marriage, but with the number of people that can be in a marriage.  With this statement being said Judge Waddoup “ruled that the state of Utah is not required to recognize the plural marriage of the Browns, it does require the state to no longer criminalize polygamy – effectively authorizing it.”  The state of Utah has “redefined marriage in terms of both number and gender, leading to almost absolute confusion when it comes to what marriage is.  The conclusion many people have come to is “the only harm that he would consider here, is a harm that is directed to the individuals involved.”[4]
            Growing up attending Catholic and Christian schools, and reading the bible frequently, I have learned that marriage is between a man and a woman.  In the Bible Genesis 2: 22-24 talks about husband and wife saying, “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.  The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man."  For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”  The Roman Catholic Church, as you can imagine, is against polygamy.  Marriage or Matrimony in the Catholic Church is a “covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring"[5]  Polygamy is like giving permission to your spouse to commit adultery. For this reason and because of my religious beliefs, I believe that polygamy is morally and ethically wrong.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

The Effects of Birth Control



Birth Control is “the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies, typically by use of contraception” (Google).  Birth control has become a trending topic in the last few months.  With the Supreme Court ruling that small non corporate businesses do not have to provide birth control that is known to cause abortions, if it opposes their beliefs.  Then, the State of California overruled this decision on Friday August 22, 2014, saying that any business or college must provide and pay for birth control for any of their employees, no matter their religious affiliation.   
The Hobby Lobby case started back in September 2012 and went to the Supreme Court a year later and finally ended in June of 2014.  The Court stated “our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.”[1]  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of the First Amendment is what led Hobby Lobby to their five to four victory.  The United States believes in freedom of religion and you should not be mandated to provide benefits that are prohibited by your religious beliefs.  After the verdict of the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby released this statement saying, “The Court’s decision is a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith. We are grateful to God and to those who have supported us on this difficult journey.”
Recently, California Governor Jerry Brown ordered two exempted Roman Catholic University’s to provide full contraceptives and unregulated abortion coverage to their employees against their moral beliefs.  Keep in mind the Governor Brown was born and raised Catholic, spending three years in the seminary (education for Catholic priests), and was married in the Catholic Church in 2005.  So why does Jerry Brown single out the Catholic University’s that were considered exempt under Federal HHS mandates?  Why does he feel these religious organizations should pay for abortions and birth control when it is against their moral teachings?  The answer to this question is the reproductive privacy act which passed in 2003.  This act “guarantees a woman’s right to both terminate a pregnancy and to birth control.”[2]  With California ignoring what the Supreme Court ruled on back in June, just goes to show how our society is attached to abortion.  This controversy “serves as a very poignant reminder of the fact that religious liberty requires essential and continual vigilance. And, though this particular policy refers to two Catholic institutions in California, this news should serve as ample warning to evangelical Christian institutions that we could be next on the line. That the protection that was now denied to these two Roman Catholic institutions can just as quickly, and just as arbitrarily, be denied to evangelical colleges and universities as well.”[3]
Growing up in the Roman Catholic Church and attending Catholic School for nine years, has deeply rooted me in Catholicism.  “The official teaching of the Catholic Church does state that artificial (condoms, diaphragms, intrauterine devices) and chemical (the "pill", foams, gels) forms of birth control are always morally wrong. The Catholic Church only approves of natural forms of artificial birth control, the best-known and most effective of which is The Natural Family Planning Method (NFP).”[4]  I do not just believe birth control is wrong, because that is what they ingrained in me.  I believe it is wrong because what they have taught me about God and the bible.  So, I believe that any company or university should not be obligated to pay for birth control or abortions if it is against their religious beliefs. 

Friday, August 22, 2014

The State of Jefferson


Over the years California has been facing more and more challenges.  The state is in financial crisis, education is being cut, and thousands of people are out of work.  California serves as a home to 38 million people, many feel that that they are not being represented fairly in Sacramento or Washington D.C.  This is why numerous individuals have wanted to split California into two.

Since the 1840’s various people have wanted to fuse Northern California with Southern Oregon to create the State of Jefferson.  But it wasn’t till nearly one hundred years later on November 17, 1941 that the counties on both borders came together and had a meeting.  “The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted to allocate 100 dollars to research the possibility of seceding from the state of California and joining the other counties to form a new 49th state.”[1]  The idea of the State of Jefferson gained popularity quickly and was competing for the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle nearly everyday.  On December fourth they elected the judge of Crescent City, John L. Childs, to become the first governor of the state.  They were so pleased with the progress they had made, that they had a parade to celebrate how far they had come.  But sadly three days later all their hopes and dreams of a new state came to abrupt ending, when Pearl Harbor was bombed.  Now that the war is long gone, the State of Jefferson is again a topic of conversation, not as the forty-ninth state but as the fifty-first state.  It will not be easy getting the new state approved, first it must be approved by the California Legislature and then by Congress.  If all goes well, “There could be as many as sixteen northern California counties that could join in, creating an area that would make up more than a quarter of the state's land mass, about twice the size of New Hampshire with about four hundred and sixty-seven thousand residents."[2]  The new state would span from some of “California's most majestic scenery, from rugged coastlines to agriculture-dominated valleys, Mount Shasta and Redwood National Park.”[3]  As of now, officials from Glenn, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sutter, and Yuba counties have voted and are ready to unite for this movement of the fifty first state.  

Now many of you are probably wondering how this is controversial.  Many people are for The State of Jefferson because it promises a smaller government, lower taxes, and more representation.  While other people fight back and say The State of Jefferson can not pay for education, social welfare, health, and other programs and services the way California does as a whole, so it would not be worth it to split apart and lose these luxuries?  Throughout my research I learned that on an average the people of Northern California are among the poorest of the state, but Southern California has a lot more people living on the streets and more illegal immigrants to support.  With this being said if our tax money stayed right here in Northern California I believe we would be able to support ourselves, therefore I believe California should become two states.  Mohandas Gandhi once said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”    




[1]  Jefferson State.  http://www.jeffersonstate.com
[2] The Movement to Keep the 51st State Alive.  http://www.thewire.com
[3] 2 of 3 California secession measures defeated.  http://www.redding.com