Default Responses

What do I default to?

After reading over my blog posts, it seems that my default response to conflicting views is to pay attention to both sides of the story. I spent a fair amount of research time to determine the true intent of each argument or discussion, you know, all spirit-of-the-law kind of stuff. I truly sought to understand the issue (at least within the time I allotted to each post), not only from the author's point of view, but from anyone's point of view who might have an investment in the issue. I believe this mostly stems from a class I took from Becky a couple years ago. It was Intercultural Communications. I learned very deeply that other cultures simply have different thought processes, and when I say cultures, I mean even down to the culture of one's immediate family versus someone else's family. We all simply learn different values depending on the culture in which we are immersed.  I think this is why it is crucial to one's social, mental and emotional development to surround yourself with those you admire and wish to emulate because eventually you will find yourself emulating them.

Anywho, I learned in this class to work to understand the values and rules of other cultures, to put yourself in their culture with their beliefs.  This is the only way to live peaceably.

Prior to this experience, I was very biased to my own upbringing and often found myself baffled by the behavior of others, like, "Why would anyone blow themselves up for a religious cause? That's retarded"

Now I work harder to understand the viewpoints of all involved in a particular issue, and then develop my opinions. For this reason I think whenever I see something that sounds kind of extreme, I hold off on a position until I can research the issue thoroughly enough to feel confident in my understanding of all sides. This is one of the reasons why I feel most of what Donald Trump says publicly is simply his saying what he thinks his voters want to hear, because it's all so extreme, and not just extreme, but often flip-flopped. I know there is more to him than meets the eye (how much more, I don't know), as he cannot have reached the point of success where he is now without some form of character (though I'm still not voting for him).

I have greatly valued the points of critical thinking we've learned in this class.  I feel much more empowered in my ability to understand arguments and dissect them to a point of comprehension.

Line of Reasoning - Due Process

In his article, "If You Change a Baby’s Diaper in Arizona, You Can Now Be Convicted of Child Molestation," Mark Joseph Stern discusses the ruling in Arizona that classifies all caregivers of infants and young children as child molesters. He states "Arizona’s child molestation laws have been weaponized into a tool for prosecutorial harassment, allowing the state to target any parent or caregiver—out of spite or malice, or simply to boost their conviction rates. This terrible decision has gutted constitutional rights and turned many of the state’s residents into unknowing criminals. Barring intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court, due process has now been suspended for Arizona’s parents and caregivers."

Stern argues that the vagueness of ARS statutes 13-1404 and 13-1410 implicate any contact with the genitalia, anus, or female breasts of anyone under 15 years of age is sexual abuse or molestation. By extension, this would imply that bathing or changing the diaper on one's child would offer sufficient evidence to put one in jail.

While Stern's argument seems to lean toward extreme, his argument is cogent through Inductive Reasoning. In the court ruling in State v. Holle, the majority declare that no changes or clarification will be added to the statute to make clear that the "touching" should be with sexual intent, and that prosecutors should exercise good judgement when approaching cases involving sexual contact with a child. Stern goes on to suggest that this approach unconstitutionally removes the right to due process through convicting innocent people even though they have not received fair notice of what is punishable by law.

What is furthermore unconstitutional is that the burden to prove lack of sexual intent in these cases falls upon the defendant, which goes against all prior court processes requiring the burden of proof to be provided by the prosecutor.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not in Arizona.

Discussion Post - Immigration

Is building a wall a response to national security or an exercise in ethnocentricity? 

I believe it is both. At least in the minds of those who want to build a wall. They believe that it is in response to national security. Any psychiatrist (or other outside observer) might suspect ethnocentrism. Their reasoning might follow the saying "Good fences make good neighbors," but that "rule" only works as long as an entry point exists somewhere along the property to allow for kind and concerned neighbors or the occasional Jehovah's Witness.  When one attempts to shut out everyone, one merely creates a stronger desire for outsiders to break through one's barrier, if only to see what's on the other side.  This applies to physical as well as mental walls.  In fact, one might argue that some put up their "walls" with the subconscious intention for others to break them down.

It is in man's nature to raise walls, generally to create some sense of security. But if walls invite, or dare I say, challenge outsiders, then what kind of security is one actually creating? Mostly that of the mental kind. Walls will never give total and complete physical security, but they sure can make one feel more secure. I believe supporters of the wall simply want to feel safer, regardless of actual, proven security. They may feel that all illegal immigrants are a danger to their way of life or actual life,  and thus, they begin putting up their walls. First, they mentally build them in the form of ethnocentrism, racism, etc., then they start construction on their physical walls.

When our society begins putting up walls, we, as its citizens may want to look inwardly and ask ourselves, "Why do I feel as though shutting out differing cultures and, subsequently, differing thought processes will help me be safer?"  The answer to this question may be difficult to accept, but it will be the first step to discovering humanity's true purpose: working with each others' differences to synergystically evolve our race as humans.

Line of Reasoning - Freedom of Religion

In his article titled The deeply troubling federal report targeting religious freedom, the Charles C. Haynes states, "According to a commission report released Sept. 7, 'civil rights protections ensuring nondiscrimination, as embodied in the Constitution, laws, and policies, are of preeminent importance in American jurisprudence.'

"If we accept this assertion, it means that conflicts between religious freedom and nondiscrimination principles are resolved by denying accommodation for religious conscience — except perhaps in very rare and narrow circumstances."

Haynes's argument has proven cogent by Deductive reasoning.  In a more thorough search, we find this footnote in the report upon which the author is commenting: "See Michael W. McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 HARV. L. REV. 1409 (1990) (arguing that courts have insufficiently recognized that religious movements of the colonial period pushed for primacy of religious conscience over secular laws and that the framers chose “free exercise of religion” over “rights of conscience” to protect religiously motivated but not secular conscience-motivated conduct);"

This adds clarification that the framers of the Constitution were aware of the potential pitfalls or misinterpretations of this amendment and further proves that the framers chose their words very wisely. Religious freedom gives one the freedom to worship how one chooses, but only as long as one's worship does not conflict with established federal law (for example, the abolishment of polygamy in early Mormonism).  Therefore, if a small business owner's religion disagrees with same-sex marriage for example, that owner may be legally forced to provide service to a lesbian couple if the courts are involved.