Law and Justice

In “Law and Justice”, I believe that Zinn is talking about how, even though we learn to obey the law, not all laws are made to be followed morally and there has to be a balance between the law and the justice. As Zinn said, “Obligation to government, however, it not natural. It must be taught to every generation”. By using the words “Motherland”, “Founding Fathers” and “Uncle Sam” America establishes itself as one of the family and, when asked for service, “how can you say no”.

It’s interesting that, from the foreign perspective of Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, America is just like Germany in the sense that, simply because someone personally disagrees with a law, they still obey it. As Zinn said, people sometimes get the domino affect in their minds; believing if one law goes it’s down with democracy and into anarchy. He used a good example of the “mass demonstrations of the black movement in the American South” to show how America didn’t descend into “general lawlessness”. When Martin Luther King Jr. said that by breaking a law that a person’s “conscience tells him is unjust” is showing “the very highest respect for law”. Zinn inferred that this meant that it was an act of “respect for the higher law, the law of morality, of justice”.

It was interesting to read how Zinn believed that, while the human race has steadily developed in arts, sciences and medicine, the government still benefits the rich. Only this time the government has legal and efficient means to do so. Emma Goldman had an interesting take on what patriotism really means (to her), “Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate”. With complete obedience of every law, a country could be isolating themselves from the global pictures and therefore denying human or civil rights.

The packet raised numerous moral questions that Zinn, while giving his opinion, left the reader to also form their own opinion; that’s the point, I think.

Inherit the Wind title

I think the title Inherit the Wind is completely appropriate title. It refers to how, if one creates a problem, it will come back. The phrase “his own house” might mean how it was within their community and this trial started a hornet’s nest of controversy. For the second part, “and the fool shall be servant to the wise in heart”, I believe is trying to show how that person who started it all would be beneath the person who followed their heart and did not simply follow along. The passage comes from Proverbs 11:29; Proverbs were usually teachings. Brady used it once and then later Hornbeck said he wrote his own obituary with the line (pg. 126). Brady brought the focus on religion and, in the end, he won the trial but lost something more; a credible reason to prevent evolution from being taught in schools. In that sense, the title is very fitting.

The ID Debate

I believe that ID should be allowed to be taught as a theory in schools. If it is taught without religious advertisement, then it has some relevance and benefit for students. The worst thing that could happen is the discontinuation of teaching either evolution or ID. As Julie Sturgeon said, “…administrators can’t avoid the conflict by declaring they’ll teach neither.” Schools and communities should have a say, but I don’t think, just because some parents object, other students, or even their own children, should be denied the whole picture. Neither theory has to stand as the truth, but, rather, the students should be allowed to believe which ever theory they choose. I think it would be a lazy form of education if the students were not able to receive multiple view points. It’s as if, because it’s “science” there has to be only one answer, which, when one thinks about it, science rarely has just one answer or theory. Why can’t it be like English, where it is widely acknowledge that there are numerous solutions or possibilities?

“The problem comes when school boards or teachers want to push their own religious agenda and include it in the regular curriculum, experts say” (Angela Pascopella). As long as there isn’t that push or, in the other extreme, making religion a touchy subject, I think the balance would benefit students. It’s important too that students are taught that evolution doesn’t “disprove God” and ID doesn’t promote a religion. I liked Wheeler’s idea that ID could be classified as “a social studies or philosophy class”. Whatever the ultimate decision is, I hope it allows students to think and decide for themselves.

"America has powerful carrots to offer"

I agree with Tamara Cofman Wittes with the opinion that the United States shouldn’t consider promoting democracy a top priority. There are so many other priorities we, as a nation, could be focusing on. Plus “for liberalization to have real meaning, the regimes themselves must change”. America simply can’t step into another country and that alone will create a democracy. One problem Wittes saw was challenging “autocratic regimes from below by supporting local activists, the administration…is failing to challenge the regimes from above”. Also, as harsh as it could sound, some countries just need to learn to stand on their own. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government". What is right and fitting for one country might not work for another. The world is diverse so it is only logical to have more than one type of country or government. As Akbar Ganji said, "You cannot bring democracy to a country by attacking it." I believe that everyone deserves human rights and democracy can help define those rights, but America can't expect to simply impose it on another country and have it work flawlessly. We should focus instead on human rights and democracy, hopefully, will follow.

Survey Results

For the first two surveys, I was categorized as a Barak Obama supporter. The third had me agreeing the most with Dennis Kucinich and Barak was fifth and McCain was nineteenth. The fourth was Ralph Nader. The fifth had me as a Left Libertarian and the sixth was just Libertarian. I wasn’t overly surprised by the results, but I feel like these surveys can’t truly group a person into a certain political view because that just how I feel now about these particular issues. The last two tests were more informative, I think, because they didn’t just say which candidate you match up with; they were more about your moral beliefs, opinions etc.