Discussion Post - The Baby Christian

Donald Trump is a born-again Christian. Of all the things I didn't expect to hear about Trump, that's in my top 3.  It appears that brother Donald has had serious discussions with many (over 1,000) Evangelical leaders on the subject of religion and, more specifically, Christianity.  One man  in particular, Dr. James C. Dobson has had personal interactions with Trump about the subject, and feels that Donald has a much softer side to him. Dr. Dobson testified that Trump has accepted Christ and personally knows the individual that brought Trump to Christ.

Now, Christians are less likely to lie, especially when there is no personal or evangelical benefit to themselves, so testimonies such as these seem genuine.  What does not seem genuine is Trump's public-facing character.  It seems as thought he blurts out whatever he thinks will get the vote, all-the-while alienating those whose culture he is using to gain the vote. While Dr. Dobson has labeled him as a "baby Christian," brother Trump has a long way to go to meet up with the demands of true Christianity.

Line of Reasoning - Freedom of Speech

In an article discussing the opposing views of free speech rights, the author states, "Censure is not the same thing as censorship; indeed, it could not be. The right not to be censored by the government extends to the right to censure — that is, morally condemn — the speech acts of other people."

Referring to the 1st Amendment right to free speech, we are informed that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

First we have to place the reasoning of this right into a commonplace setting rather than a congressional, law-making setting. The reasoning behind this argument is cogent through inductive reasoning. If one is not to be censored, then one also must recognize the right of others to remain censor-free. This may include offensive, off-color, or racial language. This may even be aggressive or threatening. The free-speech line is legally drawn at words that present "clear and present danger" In Texas v. Johnson, Supreme Court Justice William J Brennan, Jr. wrote, "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

This is where a lot of conflict lies. Some students want a "safe space" while they are attending college, while other request uninhibited freedom in expressing themselves.

President Barack Obama agrees. In a commencement address given at Rutgers University, he reminded the audience that 3 years prior former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, rescinded her speaking engagement after some expressed their opposition with Ms. Rice's policies. In his disapproval of such closed-minded actions, he stated, "... the notion that this community or the country would be better served by not hearing from a former Secretary of State, or shutting out what she had to say -- I believe that’s misguided."

So the next time someone opposes another's speech because the receiver finds the message offensive, both parties are exercising their 1st Amendment right.

Discussion Post - Justice

Was justice served?

In the case of Brock Turner, I do not believe justice was served.  The maximum amount of time he could have served was 14 years in prison. The prosecution was only asking for 6. The judge gave him 6 months with 3 years probation.  One of the main reasons the judge offers for reducing the sentence so drastically is that Turner expressed sorrow for his actions.  Turner expressed sorrow for drinking and making people sad, but he never expressed sorrow for raping the woman.  In a society where sexual assaults are just beginning to gain some much-needed awareness, I feel this sentence is very lenient. Regardless of social status, prior history or achievements, this was jaw-droppingly lenient. I don't think we need to make an expressly harsh example out of Turner, but a precedence needs to be set for this type of crime.

Is Turner the victim of social shaming?

Absolutely he is.  I can't help but wonder if Judge Persky anticipated that the public outcry following the sentencing would be punishment enough. He has armed protesters outside his home. Turner will unlikely be unable to go many places where he won't be recognized and persecuted.  

Can the system mete out true justice for victims of sexual assault?

I do not believe this will ever be the case for cases like this.  Sexual assault is so deeply traumatizing to it's victims, that whatever punishment an impartial system can offer will offer little consolation.  The only way to correct this act is to stop it before it happens, which is unlikely in most situations.

Discussion Post - Civil Rights

In his article, "A Bathroom of One’s Own?", Peter Schuck offers his opinion on how the government should have handled transgender bathroom use (the issue really branches out to all situations in which discrimination to transgender students may occur in schools, and subsequently all public restrooms). The letter he mentions was of the "Dear Collegue" sort where he feels the government has skirted its responsibility to first request public opinion, and second, to give the public the opportunity to appeal any decision on making a rule.

First of all, the letter itself only applies to schools who receive Title IX funding. Second, the letter states clearly in the second paragraph of the first page (where most readers would arguably be offering their greatest attention) that "this letter is significant guidance." And that "This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations." This states very clearly that no additional law has been created and that this letter is simply advisory in nature. Not only does this clarify that no new rules have been drafted, but, as an attachment to Title IX agreements, implies only that federal funding will withheld from any school who does not comply with these guidelines. Since this letter only applies to schools under Title IX, this could scarcely be considered a new law or public rule to be enforced. I feel Schuck is overzealous in his implication that the administration is trying "to sidestep [the] requirement" to present this "rule change" to the public as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.


Third, it is my opinion that our current public could scarcely be depended upon to come to any conflict-free resolution to such a conflicted issue. Spending five minutes on any social media page would nullify any such reasoning.


I suspect that Schuck's argument, while valid, has little to do with this "significant guidance", his proposed antagonist.