The Death Penalty

There are many people that favor the death penalty as the proper punishment for certain crimes. Their list of reasons to support the death penalty is long. It includes the argument that the threat of the death penalty will prevent future crimes and murders. This argument, known as deterrence, does not hold water. There is not solid, conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters future violence. Many studies have been conducted but none have produced concrete results. Proponents of the death penalty argue that this is because of the sheer length of the full process, with appeals and delays. This argument has not been backed by conclusive data either. The death penalty does prevent that person from committing more crimes, but it cannot guarantee that it will prevent any one else from committing crimes. 


Another pro-capital punishment argument states that the death of the murderer is the only way to provide closure, solace and retribution to the friends and family of murder victims. While many victim's families may agree with this, there are also those that do not agree. There have been many cases where families did not favor the death of the criminal, merely that they be brought to proper justice - namely a life sentence in prison. Some people feel that the death penalty in this case is not murder, but a justifiable death. 


There are many people that oppose the death penalty. They do not agree that the death penalty for murders makes for justifiable murder. It perpetuates a cycle of violence, to respond to a murder, with another murder. Punish a murder with another murder in order to prevent murders...this is its own special kind of paradox. This is like screaming at someone to stop screaming because screaming is wrong. It would not make sense in that circumstance and it does not make true sense here. 

"What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." - Emerson

This quotation applies perfectly to this death penalty paradox. The government is taking someones life before their time while saying that taking someone else's life before their time is wrong and should never be done. Which is the true message that will come across? 

Who gets to be the judge of which people deserve to live and which people deserve to die? How can you be sure that this power is perfectly fair and balanced? How do you know that there is no prejudice? How do you know that no one person has an advantage over another in this circumstance? How can you be sure that justice really is blind? How can you be sure that the person you are about to murder is actually guilty?

There are have been cases where innocent people were sentenced to death. How can this possibly be justified? It can't. This is always a possibility and the only sure way to prevent all innocent person from being unjustly executed is the abolition of the death penalty. The enormous amount of publicity that executions garner are not positive and it makes a complete spectacle out of the loss of human life. 

There has not been conclusive evidence that death penalty serves as an effective deterrent for future crime. Some studies find that it is, some find that it has absolutely no impact on crime and murder rates. Is this really something that we want to be experimenting with? Should we just keep executing people so that further studies may be conducted and conclude that the death penalty is not a deterrent for crime. 


This is not to say that murders and criminals that commit heinous crimes should be protected and set free. There are humane alternatives. The abolition of the death penalty would not cause crime rates to rise. In fact, there is evidence that shows it may even cause murder and crime rates to fall. Life imprisonment provides many more positive benefits over the death penalty. If the person is proven innocent, they can be released. They will also have a lifetime to come to grips with what they did, realize their mistakes and see their error of their ways. The death penalty may even be considered "an easy way out" in this respect. The death penalty used to be used to keep society safe from horrible criminals - to ensure that they could never escape and hurt again. This use is completely obsolete with the improvements in prison security. There is next to no chance that these criminals can ever escape. The death penalty will continue to be a controversial issue but there are better ways to punish criminals. There are better ways to help grieving families. 

The "R" word

“I want you to know that it hurts to be left out here, alone…Nothing scares me as much as feeling all alone in a world that moves so much faster than I do.” –John Franklin Stephens.

In more than one tweet Ann Coulter called President Obama a "retard". While many people called the comments "offensive and disrespectful", one man took it another step. John Franklin Stephens wrote a response to Coulter on a Special Olympics blog. He inquired as to why she would use such the word in such a shallow way, intended to insult. It is quite commendable that Stephens, a special Olympics athlete with Down Syndrome, who is so personally attached to the offensive remarks from Coulter was able to keep a positive message throughout his entire letter. He recognized that it is not just Coulter, but society as a whole that uses the R-word in such a way as an insult. He recognizes the dangers of the word and why it needs to be eradicated from not just her's, but everyone's vocabulary. It would be so easy to lose one's temper over an issue such as this but he keeps his cool and responds to her with an open arms approach, trying to help her understand why it is offensive and teach her a true meaning of the word.

A Catholic elementary school, St. Mark Elementary School, recently set a great example, especially Catholic schools but for all schools really. They held a rally to take the pledge to "spread the word to end the word." Joe Thomas, a professional football player for the Cleveland Browns, attended the rally and spoke to the crowd. He suggested replacing the meaning of the R-word to be respect and the "respect everybody, no matter who they are." Attending St. Mark is Brianna, a young girl with Down Syndrome. One teacher describes her as "a breath of fresh air." The school has set the standard for other Catholic schools to recognize that their job is not just to provide an education to "normal" children, but every child no matter of background or in this case mental capacity. Schools without a direct link to the "R-word", a student, faculty, or family member with a mental disability, should still follow this example to stand up to "Spread the Word to End the Word!"

The "R-word" wasn't always used as a derogatory term. It has evolved over the years to become a word that has a negative, insulting connotation. Just like how the word "gay" has somehow become a synonym for stupid, so was "retarded". One proponent of the campaign to end the R-word says "This word is only meant to describe conditions in the brain, and i believe it's the appropriate use of the word. As a society, we tend to judge anything we don't understand." She is right. Most people don't understand what it is to have a mental disability and over time the word has evolved to become this negative, insulting thing that is synonymous with stupid and dumb. Used in the proper way, the word is not insulting, not negative, not hurtful, nothing to be scared of.

The "R-word" actually hurts. Those with a mental illness or that know someone who has one, or even if they have no personal connection at all can easily be offended when this term is used inappropriately in a negative way. One mother of a child with an intellectual disability describes hearing the word as a bomb. She called it "That judgmental, dismissive, last-century word." She is right. It is ignorant to use the word in such a way and it must be stopped. The word isn't used in a way that reflects its true meaning and offends any who hear it. But most importantly it affects those who actually have a mental disability. It isolates them, demeans them, and puts them down. Another Mother says that the word perpetuates negative stereotypes about mental disabilities as well as horrible labels. She says "the disrespectful names that they are called or terms that people around us use very loosely." She poses a good point that many people don't really get the repercussions of using such language. 

I, personally, never use the "R-word". I also try to reprimand my friends whenever they do. Just hearing the word offends me and I have absolutely no personal connection to it. It is just purely used as  an offensive term against those that have no control over their own condition and they are isolated for absolutely no reason. It is not their fault and it is not something that is anyone's fault. Sticks and stones do break bones and words can hurt me.  

Invisible Children

Who?
Invisible Children (with capital letters) is an organization that works to help the invisible children (lower case) in Africa. Bobby Bailey, Laren Poole, Jason Russell are the three founders of Invisible Children. They are from Southern California and their decision to go to an area of Africa that was war-stricken to make a film became the beginnings of Invisible Children.


What?

They work in many different fields to help those suffering in Africa because of the rebel LRA (Lord's Resistance Army). They work to bring media attention to the problem. They achieve this through films, websites, LRA crises tracker, and touring throughout the United States in schools to spread the message and bring attention to these forgotten children. They also act to mobilize people to the cause. They hold international events, campaigns, film and music tours. They also work to protect those still at risk by putting up a radio network for natives to call for help when there is rebel danger, defection fliers, and other radios. They don't forget those that have already suffered from the tragedy. They have teacher exchange programs, scholarships, rehab centers and work to rehabilitate those that have been abducted and bring education to those without access otherwise. They try to keep the entire problem in mind, they don't just treat the short term consequences but also work to reach long term solutions.  

When?

Since 1987 Joseph Kony has been terrorizing east and central Africa. He and his Lord's Resistance Army abduct, kill and displace countless children and civilians. The founders of Invisible Children first learned about this atrocity in 2003 and founded the organization in 2004. They continue to work today and will in the future. 

Where?

The main focus of Invisible Children's efforts is in Africa. Most of their work is in the central or eastern part of the country. They began mostly in Uganda but as the problem has spread, so have they. The conflict with the LRA affects many countries including South Sudan, Uganda, Central Africa Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The organization also works in the United States to raise awareness of the cause, lobby for legislation to help, and try to bring volunteers to the cause. The two main countries that Invisible Children work in are Uganda and the United Sates. 


Why?
Invisible Children works tirelessly to help the invisible child soldiers and victims of abductions as well as other tragedies in Africa. There are so many people in need there that have no voice to ask for help. Invisible Children works to provide aid to these people and stop the horrors that still occur there today. There are still so many people that are affected by the LRA's atrocities today despite the great work Invisible Children has done so far. They have done amazing things but there is still so much to do and so much to still help with. We believe in the equal and inherent value of all human life. They fight for those without the ability to fight for themselves because "We believe that a worldview bound by borders is outdated and that stopping injustice anywhere is the responsibility of humanity everywhere."

The work that Invisible Children is doing is truly remarkable. They are giving a voice to those that would otherwise be unable to speak or be heard. Their cause is one that should be near and dear to everyone's hearts. They have already done so much, but there is so much left to do and so many ways that all of us can and should help. 

First Commandment

"I am the Lord, your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me"

Most people know this commandment as it is the first. But how many follow it? In today's world, it seems that fewer and fewer people follow this commandment. However true that is, it is not anything new. People of all monotheistic faiths throughout history have also struggled with this. Famously, directly after Moses received the Ten Commandments, he returned to the Israelites and discovered them worshiping a golden calf. This was not the first time people turned to worldly things or other gods instead of the "one true God", nor would it be the last. There are two main categories that violations of this commandment can be separated into. 1) worshiping other, false, gods before God. 2) putting worldly things before God. 

Teenagers have a history or questioning authority and rebelling against their upbringing. In 2013 this is no different. While obviously not all teens fit this stereotype, many do. Many don't attend church, practice their faith, and some don't believe in God at all. Some of this is because believing in God isn't cool or going to mass isn't cool. Again this isn't true for all teens. I can count on one hand the number of teenagers I know that go to church on a regular basis. Even smaller than that is the number that actually want to go. But I do have some friends that take their faith very seriously, actually enjoy it, and appreciate and practice the theological virtues of faith, hope and love on a religious basis.

I also have many friends that are atheist or agnostic. They don't follow the first commandment by an active choice. They choose to deny the existence of God or higher power, or that it can never be proven that there is a God. It is a choice that it is their right to make (whether you believe it is a God-given right or not is up to you). They don't worship a false god, nor do they worship any god yet this is considered against the first commandment. The other 9 commandments are derived from this first commandment and by that logic many people believe that those that don't follow the first commandment cannot follow any of the commandments by extension. I think this is simply untrue. You can believe in God, be in church every Sunday and still be an awful person just as you can practice no religion, deny the existence of God and be a wonderful person that still leads a good, moral life.

Many more people are guilty of breaking the First Commandment in the second sense. Putting worldly things before God in their lives. This practice is a form of idolatry. People often put many things ahead of God:

Money

Sports

Winning

Fame

Entertainment 

The list goes on and on. These are all forms of modern day idols. People may not bow down to them and pray to them but they are far too often placed before God in their lives. These worldly things become far too important in peoples lives than they should. People also place celebrities on the same pedestal. Giving them much more power over their lives than God because they are here on earth. People that don't believe in God often site that there is no proof, we can't see it. Even those that do believe in God turn to worldly things for the immediate gratification they get form them because they are here on Earth but "the only true happiness can come from God"

Following the First Commandment has gone by the wayside for many people. It is important to follow it, for most people. Many break the commandment without realizing it and without recognizing it as an actual sin. I consider myself a fallen Catholic. My beef isn't with God, it is with the Catholic Church's practices in the world today. But I still feel I can have a relationship with God, follow the First Commandment, and be a generally good human being without being affiliated with any particular religion. There are those that may consider this to be heresy but I don't consider it to be. If it is okay for others to practice religions that aren't Catholic or Christian, why shouldn't it be okay for someone to be independent of a particular faith but still follow the Commandments? I believe in God and I try to follow the First Commandment but I don't think you have to be a part of the Catholic Church, or any established religion for that matter, to do so.

Racism

Emmett Till - Trayvon Martin - Jordan Davis

Emmett Till's story took place in 1955, almost 60 years ago. He was brutally beaten and kill for allegedly flirting with a white woman while visiting family in the south. Both of his attackers were tried for murder, but were acquitted by an all white jury. He was just 14-years-old. The injustices here are too many to number. He was an innocent minor, unarmed. His life cut short because men decided to "take matters into their own hands". But what matters? He had done nothing illegal, he had caused no harm to anyone and what they did accuse him of was under considerable question as to whether or not he actually did it. 

Fast forward 57 years to 2012. What has changed? Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old visiting his father's fiancee near Orlando. He went to the store and purchased Skittles and an iced tea and was walking home. A member of the local neighborhood watch, Zimmerman, determined that he was "up to no good". After calling the police and being told not to follow the teen, Zimmerman ignored their request and followed Martin. An altercation ensued and Zimmerman shot and killed the unarmed minor. What was his crime? He wore a hoodie. A similar case was Jordan Davis'. He was playing music too loudly in his car with some friends. After a gun that never existed was pointed at a man that had asked them to turn down the music, 8 or 9 shots were fired at the teens, killing Davis. 

After nearly 60 years...what has changed? If anything these cases have gotten worse. Racism cannot be denied. It exists today more than ever. The spectrum of discrimination has widened to include Hispanics and those of middle eastern descent. To some every Hispanic is  here illegally and came to take your job while all people from the middle east are terrorist that want to murder Americans!!! While of course this fear is completely illogical, it exists in many even though not all voice their opinions. 

This crude and awful cartoon is an extreme example of how many racists, those both vocal and those that keep their bigoted, opinions to themselves, feel. There is no denying that there is a huge problem when smut like this should have been eliminated from our country years ago but it is in fact alive now, maybe more than ever. While great strides have been made 

for civil rights and equal opportunity, there is no controlling peoples opinion. These extreme cases possibly resulted from flaws in government or law enforcement, but the real killer, literally, was the opinions of a select few that resulted in the deaths of innocent youths that were totally unarmed and totally defenseless. This cartoon is so racist, so bigoted, so prejudiced, so many things that are wrong with the world today but that sadly it is still how some people feel! After 60 years nothing has changed from Till to Martin and Davis! Under the law advancements may have been made but in reality so many minds still cling to the horrible sentiments that cripple personal liberty and freedom and directly oppose the principles that this country was founded on. ALL men are created equal. Not all men are created equal so long as you know your place and stay there. What does it say about America if a young man walking home from buying candy is murdered for wearing a hoodie and being black!!! The final blow that takes this instance from being horrible to catastrophic is that many feel his actions were justified. He felt threatened therefore it must be okay to murder an innocent boy that did nothing buy buy some candy.  

Acquittal - The men that kidnapped, beat, and murdered Till were tried for murder but acquitted. This is another horrid injustice from these tragic cases. Not only did these men commit heinous crimes for no reason other than prejudiced against innocent black youths, they got away with it. In the 50's this case had absolutely no chance of charging two white men with murdering a black boy and actually punishing them. We would like to think that this is not the case today and to some extent it isn't. The judicial system is much fairer now and the guilty will be punished for their crimes - usually. However when Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, the police detained him but never arrested him because he claimed self defense against an unarmed teenager. This is a little more than unfair and fishy. Lets just hope the future holds something better than the past but there is no doubt that racism is still alive and doing well...

No Silver Lining

There is absolutely no silver lining here. The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary are a tragedy from which it will take a long time to recover.

26 people lost their lives

Of those 26 people, 20 were under the age of 10, 6 and 7 to be exact. The lives of 20 children were taken and nothing can make that better. Their friends and families may never be able to fully recover from the loss. 

A very similar thing happened in China around the same time as the Sandy Hook massacre. A man in China stabbed 22 children outside of an elementary school. No one was killed. This is not to take away from the trauma, pain and suffering of these victims. Their experience was traumatizing and may leave mental and physical scars on the victims for the rest of their lives. But at least they get to have a "rest of their lives." The victims of the Sandy Hook massacre will not. 

The differences in these two stories calls into question the always controversial topic of gun control. Even without this latest tragedy, I would be for tighter gun control. Most violent crimes are committed with guns. The type of gun also matter. Assault weapons cause mass casualties that would not be possible with guns of a lower caliber. 

They would find a way to get them anyways.

This argument does nothing for me. Its like saying that a criminal could still break into the house so just  give them the TV now. If assault weapons were illegal or even just regulated more closely, illegal guns would be harder to obtain and much more expensive. This would reduce the number of individuals that had access. There is nothing that can be done to totally elimination  the number of people that have access to these guns and I know that. Something has to be done though.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." 

VS. 

"Guns don't kill people, they kill LOTS of people."

Really? There were 22 children attacked by a person. They all survived. There was another group of 26 people attacked by a person. All of them died. Was the difference the person or the weapon? Guns are part of the problem. The truth is that a person with a gun can do a LOT more damage than someone with a knife or even a gun of a lesser caliber. There is evidence that proves that strict gun laws can be effective. The very strict gun laws in Japan include a thorough background check system. Gun ownership is down and they have 11 gun related murders to our 12,000. I am not suggesting that we adopt their policies verbatim but it is food for thought. The U.S. has the highest gun related death rate in the world. By far. There IS a problem and those that say there isn't are either a) lying or b) just that ignorant. (whether or not they believe gun control is the answer.)

Chris Rock is a very funny man. But he makes a good point behind the even better joke. 

“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control...I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... S**t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his a**.’ - Chris Rock

Does this look like something you shoot a deer with? It doesn't to me. But it is what 20 school children were shot with.

I don't pretend to know everything about gun control. I know even less about guns themselves. But you don't have to be a genius to know that there is a problem. You don't want stricter gun control or ammunition control? Then what do you propose we do about this? How many school shootings and other tragedies like this have to happen before something is done about it. Gun control is just the first issue that comes to everyone's mind but if anyone else has a suggestion to help make sure that these things can no longer happen, I'd love to hear it. I'm all ears. 

There is no cut and dry response to an issue of such grave importance, but something has got to give.

What you need to know about sin

"Sin is rebelling against God."

In its simplicity, it holds truth. No matter how complicated your life and the decisions you make get, it can all be broken down to this one statement. When you sin it never affects only you. At the minimum it affects you and God. God laid out clearly Ten Commandments for us to follow, the Beatitudes, all of scripture, there is any number of sources to turn to for guidance in our actions. To sin is to go against him, especially when his will is clearly laid out before us. 

"...human beings live in lawless communities that do not reflect God's plan for humanity."

The sins of man cannot be blamed on God. So many people make the argument that if there is a god why is their war, famine, death, etc. This argument does not hold true because of free will. When evil things happen on earth because of the personal sins of man, that does not mean God willed it to be so. It means that they went against God's will. With free will comes great responsibility, responsibility to do that right thing and follow God's will not our own. But most people don't follow this and make irresponsible decisions, decisions that go against God. 

"[Sin is] an offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience."

You can sin even if you don't believe in God. God's will is not just for Christians, it is for everyone because his will is what is good. He wants what is just and good in the world, the right thing to do. It is logical and stands to reason, truth and right conscience. His will is not ridiculous requests like 'it is sinning to not wear a purple hat after you ate meatloaf'. No. Don't kill. Don't lie.Don't cheat. Don't steal. These are simple things, easily applied in every day life that everyone should live by anyways regardless of religion, age, or social standing. When you sin it isn't just against God, but also against reason, truth, and right conscience because it simply wasn't the right thing to do.

"A sin of omission occurs when we fail to do something that is required by God's moral law."

Many people don't realize this. Not doing what you are supposed to do is just as bad as doing something you weren't supposed to do. It goes perfectly with another quote, "There are two kinds of evil people in this world. Those who do evil things and those who see evil things and don't try to stop it." It can be applied so many places in life. In school, if you see someone being bullied and don't stand up for them and do something and you just stand there and let it happen, it is almost as bad as being the one throwing the punches. Many people just let evil things happen and feel they have done nothing wrong because they weren't directly involved, but they have. A sin of omission is quite serious, just like a sin of commission. 

"Social sin happens when a sinful attitude or action becomes so commonly accepted that it goes unchallenged by most people"

We as a society are constantly guilt of this. The 'Oh thats just the way things are' attitude infects many situations. Individuals commit personal sin, but when many commit the same personal sin, that is when it becomes a social sin. For Example, paying a woman less for equal work as a man. If one boss does it, it is a personal sin. But because so many do it across the country, even the world, it is a social sin. Sexism, racism, ageism and the like are all social sins. Sometimes the social sin can originate from laws and spread that way. An example of that would be segregation laws that forced black and white Americans to have different schools, drinking fountains, park benches, bathrooms, transportation, etc. That is racism but is was manifested in the laws of some states. It began from racism and perpetuated it. While many disagreed, they often did nothing about it, a sin of omission. 

There are many kinds of sin and many things to know about them but it can be boiled down to much simpler terms. Sin is bad. Okay? Don't do it. Do the right thing. It isn't that hard. Your conscience is there to help you and there are always people to lean on for advice. It doesn't have to be that complicated. 

*Quotes from Christian Morality: Our Response to God's Love.

*All but a few of the opinions expressed here are the opinions that I was supposed to get from reading the textbook, not my own.