First Amendment Applies to Conservative Speech Too

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Freedom applies to conservative speech too - Opinions

On April 12, Erskine Bolwes was inaugurated as president of the UNC-system. The ceremony was held at UNCG's own Aycock Auditorium and was preceded by a parade leading down Spring Garden Street, where many students lined the streets to welcome Bowles to our university. One day earlier, a student organization hung a banner in the Elliott University Center to greet Bowles in a very different way. The banner, which was visible the moment one walked in the front of the EUC, read, "College Republicans welcome Senator President Erskine Bowles... Someone had to hire him!"

Most people, including Bowles himself, realized the sign was simply poking fun at Bowles' two failed Senate campaigns. Others were not quite so enamored with the sign, saying it was "disrespectful" or "inappropriate." One of these people, a faculty member from the Bryan School, actually took down the banner on the day of Bowles' inauguration. The banner was soon found and returned to its rightful place, and the faculty member was told it is not his place to make that decision. Ironically, Bowles found the banner so amusing that he personally asked the College Republicans if he could have it to hang in his office.

This stunt couldn't have come at a better time. The very next day, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Tim Johnston hosted an Honors Coffee with the topic, "Does UNCG welcome the expression of conservative opinions?" It ended up being more of a discussion than a speech, but enlightening nonetheless. Being one of only three openly conservative students who attended, I actually did a lot of the talking.

The reaction was not what I expected. I had come ready to fight with whomever dared tell me I was imagining this liberal bias in academia. To my surprise, Dr. Johnston as well as the other faculty in attendance seemed shocked to hear how openly biased some professors are with their classes. There seemed to be a general consensus that this was to be somewhat expected, since 90 percent of the faculty at this university tend to be left-leaning. However, it was generally agreed upon that professors never have the right to ridicule their students for their beliefs. I entertained them with several stories of my favorite sociology professor who enjoyed making fun of me and my arguments on a daily basis.

Almost two years ago, I wrote a column on liberal bias at UNCG, and I had to go looking for feedback. I asked students in my political science classes (both conservative and liberal) and other random students around school if they thought their professors tended to be more welcome to liberal comments than conservative ones. As a result, I found several conservative students who pretend to be liberal while in classes with liberal professors, and liberal students who admitted there was clearly a bias in their favor.

I can't be sure what it is that's changed. Whether professors have become more blatantly liberal, conservative students have become more angry and fed up with the bias, or Facebook has just made it that much easier for people to contact me, not a week passes that I don't receive several IMs or emails about ridiculously liberal professors. Not many go into detail, but they'll say things like, "Why does my Spanish teacher insist on telling us why we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq? You should write a column on this." Some of the best messages came back in January and February when students would contact me to let me know their professor was ripping my Angela Davis columns apart piece by piece, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the class.

Now, I'm all for freedom of speech, and I would never advocate putting restrictions on what anyone can say (nor would I say we should use affirmative action to hire more conservatives, as one person suggested at Honors Coffee), but I would hope our professors could do the same thing. And if some of them are so intent on turning us all into bleeding hearts, they need to realize they'll catch more flies with honey. Many of my views on women's political issues have indeed become more liberal since taking a Women and Gender Studies course with a professor who was very open to discussion about other sides of the issues. And because my ideas were respected, rather than simply squashed because of their inherently anti-women, right-wing qualities, I was more likely to respect other views on those same subjects, which made a lot more sense than I cared to admit at the time.

Professors that refuse to hear conservative arguments in their classrooms are only teaching their students to be more close-minded. The students who were already liberal to begin with become more liberal, feeling justified in doing so. Likewise, the more conservative-leaning students band together and become more conservative because they are being attacked from every angle. The end result is fewer moderate students, and every little thing becomes a political war.

And, after being here for four years, I've found I learn more under professors who are less blatantly biased, I've learned who they are, and I've succeeded in filling my schedule with their classes.

However, not all the blame can be placed on professors. Conservative students who refuse to point out their views in class for fear of ridicule don't have very much room to complain. You can't accuse a professor of being liberally biased if you don't at least try to point out the inequalities.

Two years after my first "liberal bias in academia," I realize my anger isn't over having conservative views silenced in the classroom; it's having anyone's views silenced. We're here to learn, and learning means being able to take all views into account. Professors shouldn't make fun of our opinions or try to make us feel we'll be graded down for not agreeing with them, but students should also stand up for their own ideas in class. If we don't exercise our freedom of speech, we'll have no reason to complain when it is taken away.

Greensboro's Woods of Terror: Truly Frightening... Especially if You're Afraid of a Little Religious Speech

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Greensboro's Woods of Terror - Opinions

I want to begin this column by saying that I love Halloween, and I am incredibly glad that it falls on a weekday this year. The last time I was able to go to class dressed up like an idiot was Halloween my freshman year, and I didn't have the nerve to go through with it. You better bet I'll be walking around campus all day this year in my costume. Watch out.

Halloween is a great time of year. I've been a fan of horror movies and ghost stories since I was little, so of course I love a holiday that encourages these things. One of the things you must do, if you really want to appreciate Halloween, is do something, well, scary. There's no end to the number of haunted attractions to be found at this time of year. UNCG's own Mary Foust Residence College puts on a haunted house every year. It's conveniently located for the average student, and it's gotten some great reviews in the past.

But if you have a car and you don't mind a little 10-15 minute drive, there might be another attraction for you to check out. On Church Street, right outside of the Greensboro city limits, lies the Woods of Terror, an award-winning haunted trail attraction. According to their website (www.woodsofterror.com), the woods in which this trail lies is haunted by the spirits of those who perished during the Great Depression and were not given a proper burial.

After receiving high rankings from MSNBC, hauntedhouse.com, and Tourist Parks and Attractions, I finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. Some friends and I piled in a car and drove out to the Woods of Terror, looking for a scare. And boy did we find it. After being chased with chain saws, bumping into dead bodies, and taking the scariest hayride ever, my friends and I were all hoarse from screaming and laughing. Even I had to admit that I had been genuinely spooked by the haunted trail.

Aside from actually having the ability to frighten me, something else sets this Halloween attraction apart from all the others. After entering the Woods of Terror, you are immediately herded into a room with a television. A man (who turns out to be Eddie McLaurin, the owner of the Woods of Terror) appears on the screen and proceeds to tell everyone in the room about Jesus Christ. He doesn't preach or come off as "holier than thou," but he does explain how Christianity changed his life and how it can do the same for everyone in the room.

Of course, being in a crowd of college students, there were the obligatory cries of, "I'm offended!" and "He can't force his religion on us!" The irony in this is, of course, McLaurin isn't forcing his religion on anyone; he's offering it as an option to people entering HIS own private attraction. But most silly "open-minded" college students don't look at it that way.

Eddie McLaurin has been using his haunted trail to scare people since 1991. Although he had been raised as a Christian, he admits that he had fallen off the path sometime around his senior year of high school. Years later, after rededicating himself to God, McLaurin told me he realized (in reference to the haunted attraction), "God needed to be in it, and if it didn't glorify God, it wasn't right."

As he expected, McLaurin has received some bad feedback in the way he begins his haunted trail. Some Christians have chastised him for celebrating a traditionally "Satanic" holiday; however, in response, McLaurin states, "It's only the devil's holiday if we give it to him." He went on to say that Christians who refuse to celebrate Halloween should also refuse to have anything to do with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on other major holidays. On the other end of the spectrum, non-Christians have criticized him for "forcing" his religion under false pretenses. But McLaurin has also received a great deal of feedback from people who were personally touched by his video, and who have changed their life the same way he changed his.

Eddie McLaurin is just another example of why I'm so proud to live in a free country where people can come up with ideas like this one. And sure, maybe there will be some people who don't attend his park because they don't want to have Christianity "forced" upon them, but they're the ones that are losing out. The video lasts all of two minutes, and doesn't make you feel like a bad person or a sinner if you don't chose to listen to it. And if anyone is really, truly offended by the video, I'm sure they'll have had it scared out of them by the end of the haunted trail. If you're looking for a good time this Halloween season, visit the Woods of Terror on Church Street. Or, you could just be a loser and sit at home if you're one of those people who are terrified by the concept of the First Amendment.

The Conundrum of the Internet: The Framers of the Constitution REALLY Should Have Thought About Blogs...

THE RIGHT ANGLE: The conundrum of the Internet - Opinions

I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.

But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?

The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.

Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.

I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.

In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.

It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.

A Little Divine Intervention

THE RIGHT ANGLE: A little divine intervention - Opinions

The average student's vocabulary, whether they realize it or not, is regularly infused with religious jargon. Some students "pray" for help on an exam, or claim a "miracle" would be needed to pass a certain class. And who hasn't exclaimed, "Thank GOD!" after receiving an A on a particularly hard paper?

A good number of students will never literally pray for a good grade, nor will they even realize that they are using terms such as these. But every now and then, something so coincidental and convenient happens that it can only be chalked up to divine intervention.

I learned this for myself last week. I had a paper due on a Thursday and, as is typical of me, I waited until the night before to start it. I already had a general idea of what I was going to focus on, so all I really needed to do was actually type the paper. Of course, I assumed that I had all the books I needed to complete the paper. And as luck would have it, I was wrong.

The majority of my paper focused on women in Biblical times, and I had planned to use several examples from the New Testament.

Unfortunately, I realized a little too late, that I did not have a Bible. Most people wouldn't see this as a real problem, as there are numerous online Bible sites that make it simple to find any verse on any subject in any part of the Bible. But I'm different. While I do have the ability to waste hours upon hours of my life reading blogs and other junk, I find it nearly impossible to read the Bible while on a computer monitor. Perhaps it has to do with my preference for the King James Version, which was clearly not written for the online age.

I struggled with an online Bible for hours before finally giving up. I decided that the next morning, I would wake up early, go to the library, and hope I had enough time to find a real Bible and finish the paper.

On my way to the library the next morning, an amazing thing happened: I ran into a Gideon. Now I know you've all seen them around campus at one time or another. They position themselves at high-traffic areas and hand out pocket-sized Bibles which conveniently contain the New Testament. As I was handed a Bible at 8am, I was still too asleep to realize what had just occurred. I continued walking to the library, went to the computer lab, sat down, and signed on before I actually realized what had happened. After spending several hours wishing for a Bible the previous night, I had simply been handed one on my way to finish the paper.

Now, when you're not a very religious person and you suddenly realize that there really MUST be someone out there watching out for you, it's a bit of an odd feeling. In fact, I spent the rest of the day with a sensation very similar to paranoia hanging over my head. But even more than that, I felt awe over what had happened to me. I am 100% sure that what happened to me was nothing short of divine intervention.

After turning my paper in, I walked around campus and thanked all of the Gideons for simply doing what they do. I was amazed at how many of them told me they had been treated badly simply for standing around handing out Bibles. The fact that anyone would berate a missionary for no good reason just sickens me.

I do not necessarily subscribe to the belief that UNCG needs preachers on every corner trying to save the souls of lost students, but that's not what these guys are doing. They're simply offering religious books for those interested. They do not force anyone to take these Bibles (I myself have turned them down several times over my four years at this school). They do not give you dirty looks for not taking their Bibles. As far as I can tell, they're criticized for giving religious literature to people who want them.

I admire the Gideons for putting up with this abuse for so long. They realize that every time they visit UNCG, they're going to be cursed and yelled at, yet they continue to come. Why? Because they realize that this could be the day they are able to reach out to just a few more people. Or maybe it's because they knew that one single college student had a need for some divine intervention.

What Rights?: Apparently, the Right to Private Property Doesn't Exist. But What Rights Really Do?

What Rights? - Opinions

I met an interesting man last week at the restaurant where I work. Of course, when you spend your summer waitressing in a small Southern town, there is no limit to the "interesting" people you might meet. But this man was interesting in a "breath of fresh air" kind of way.

He was in his 40s or 50s, sitting alone, and seemed very eager to talk. Being such a slow day, I decided to stop and chat with him for a while. As it turns out, he's a history professor from Georgia who was just coming through town on business. Upon finding out I was a political science major, the topic naturally turned to politics. I was somewhat relieved to learn that this random history professor was a Republican, since liberals tend to be bad tippers.

He seemed just as relieved to find that there were indeed conservative college students such as myself at public universities. I told him about the trouble I've had with certain professors who don't appreciate my alternative stance on some classroom discussions. He said it was something that he had seen many times before. "Some people confuse their 'rights' with things that really aren't their rights at all. Many professors think they have the right to curtail their students' freedom of speech. But that's completely wrong. You have the right to say whatever you want in that classroom. They do not have the right to infringe upon your rights." He then went on to preach about how political correctness has spawned a whole new generation of people who claim their "rights" are being restricted, when really those rights never even existed.

He told me it was something I should do a column on, and I politely told him I might. Then, a strange thing happened. Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments ultimately have the power to seize property from individuals for private land development that may prompt economic growth. And as I'm sitting here, wondering whatever happened to property rights, I'm taken back to the conversation with the Georgia professor. Do we really have a right to property? Or is it just something we made up because we thought we lived in the land of the free?

This fight isn't anything new. Decades ago, my great-grandparents were forced to give up their farm in Wayne County, NC, for the construction of a new four-lane highway that was supposed to go right through the farm. The highway was never built. To this day, that farmhouse still stands there, and has even been re-inhabited. My great-grandparents gave up everything they had worked so hard to acquire for a highway that would never even exist.

But the fact that this has been going on for years now doesn't make it any less shocking. The Supreme Court has actually come out and said that mall contractors have more right to land than the people who have been living there their entire lives. Hello Wal-Mart, goodbye property rights.

Another federal decision this week made me stop and listen in awe. Congress is well on its way to passing an amendment that would outlaw flag burning. Now, this is not something that I'm worried about for personal reasons. I could not fathom ever wanting to burn an American flag, and I will admit that it makes me sick to my stomach when I see people doing such a thing. The irony of such an act has always confused me: you protest our government by burning a flag, yet you have the freedom to protest by burning a flag. It is my guess that most flag-burners have taken that freedom for granted. But regardless of how I feel about it, I don't think I have the right to say what a person can or cannot do with their own flag.

By passing a constitutional amendment that bans flag-burning, we are taking away one's right to express themselves and placing restrictions on it. Today, you can't burn the American flag. What's next? No open criticism of the government whatsoever? Limited freedom of press? Who knows, maybe within a few years this column will be outlawed for daring to question the government's decision.

I've always been so proud of my rights as an American. I love having a political argument with someone and being able to remind them that they should consider themselves lucky to live in a nation that allows them to speak out against a president they hate. But when the Supreme Court chooses Big Business over individual rights and Congress slowly begins to restrict how we are able to express ourselves, I have to be concerned. Now is the time to enjoy your freedoms and your rights - while you still have them.

Socialists: Stuck Between Idiocy and Irrelevance -- Don't Let Them Fool You, Free Speech is Not on the ISO's Agenda

The Right Angle: Socialists: Stuck between Idiocy and Irrelevance - Opinions

It was a beautiful day in UNCG history. In perfect weather, two groups with completely opposite views were living in perfect harmony right next to each other. The College Republicans set up a pro-life table with facts about abortion and pregnancy, and the Voices for Planned Parenthood (VOX, Latin for "voice") set up a pro-choice table about ten feet away and handed out condoms.

Anyone can see the valid points that either of these groups were trying to make. The CRs were trying to convince students that fetuses are more than just a cluster of cells and should therefore have a right to live, and VOX wanted people to realize that women should have the right to choose whether or not they carry their pregnancy to full-term. Passer-bys had the choice of stopping by either of the tables or even flipping off one of the groups if they felt so inclined to do so (and apparently, some people did).

If you really can't figure out what side I was on by now, I'll give you a hint: it wasn't VOX. That doesn't mean I don't respect and understand their views. To be completely honest, in order to be as effective as possible in a situation like this, the two groups need each other in order to give students a choice.

It was a day that gave me hope for America. Here were two groups peacefully protesting each other without an argument in sight... until the socialists showed up.

Don't get me wrong here. You should all know by now that as a huge fan of the first amendment, I support anyone's right to speak their mind. But the second you try to suppress MY freedom of speech, we have a problem.

The International Socialist Organization, disturbed by the peaceful, harmonious freedom going on in front of the library, set up a table BETWEEN VOX and the CRs. Not content with simply handing out copies of "The Socialist Worker" (oh excuse me, SELLING "The Socialist Worker"... one day these kids will learn what socialism is and probably feel pretty stupid), they had to go one step further and start actually harassing the pro-life booth.

A couple latched on to me as I walked past them to bring lunch to the CRs. They screamed out angry, irrelevant questions such as, "WHY are you president of the College Republicans?" I am still perplexed by this one. I thought I was elected, but perhaps they think no Republican can hold office unless they "fix" the election.

Within moments, anti-first-amendment Socialists surrounded the pro-life table. The CRs calmly sat back and watched in amusement as the socialist argument went around in circles trying to explain itself.

I cannot stress this enough: regardless of your political affiliation, if you have any grasp of the English language whatsoever, you will win any argument with ISO. Give it a try the next time you see them around campus. I can guarantee you that the best thing they will come back at you with is, "Well, Europe does it, so we should too." They missed the history class where America declared independence from that wonderful continent.

Because they are aware that they'll never win an argument, the socialists have perfected the art of changing the subject in hopes that their opponents will become very confused and just give up. They began arguing with the CRs about women's rights, then moved to the war in Iraq, the death penalty, education, healthcare, and liberalism in public universities - all within three minutes. One socialist even tried to convince a proudly abstinent pro-lifer that she didn't know what she was missing by not having sex. Well, APPARENTLY, she's missing out on having an abortion, a vital part of any healthy sexual relationship!

For what seemed like an eternity, the CRs tried to convince the socialists that they were simply trying to educate students on abortion, not ban the use of it altogether. Many Republicans invoked the first amendment, but to no avail. The response was overwhelmingly, "All Republicans are liars, Bush stole the election from Gore and Kerry, and all conservatives are members of the KKK." You know, all the intelligent things we've come to expect from the ISO posters littering our campus.

Eventually, campus police showed up to insure that the groups respected each other's freedom of speech, although the CRs and VOX were already mature enough to handle that responsibility without police involvement. After about an hour of peace, the socialists had to leave; they were bored.

Anyone with any sense would realize that if the College Republicans' main goal for that day were to make abortion illegal, they would not have been demonstrating on the UNCG campus. The CRs tried to make it known that they were simply informing the students about abortion myths and such. Many people do not know about the consequences that may result from an abortion years later, because many pro-choicers want everyone to think that it is a perfectly normal and healthy procedure, and that is not always true.

So thumbs up to the socialists in respecting differing views from their own. Also, does anyone else find it ironic that these are some of the most prominent anti-war students on campus, and yet everything was completely peaceful until they showed up and attacked the Republicans? I can't wait until these kids grow up and realize how ridiculous they looked making these kinds of scenes. Who knows, maybe that will be the same day that they realize socialists should be the last people on earth selling their own propaganda for a buck a piece.

The New First Amendment: Freedom of All Religions -- Except Christianity

THE RIGHT ANGLE: The New First Amendment - Opinions

Sometime last summer, as I was wasting away my life in front of a computer, I came across a rather humorous political cartoon drawn by Mike Luckovich. It showed an image of the Constitution with the words "Except for Homos - G.W.B" scrawled across it in what looked to be black crayon. I'll admit, it was funny and I laughed. But looking back on that cartoon, I'm starting to get a similar picture, only this time it's the Bill of Rights and "Except for Christians" is neatly penciled in next to the First Amendment.

Recently, a fellow UNCG student stopped me on campus and told me about a rather unconventional lecture they had endured in their Anthropology course. It seems that while this professor was teaching them about the Yanomamo culture in South America, they had taken it upon themselves to preach to the class about the evils of America and Christianity. The lecture included a discussion on how missionaries had traveled to the Yanomamo tribe in the mid to late 1900's and brought with them what proved to be fatal diseases including malaria, influenza, and even the common cold. This is, of course, historical fact, and no one should be offended by it. What bothers me, however, is that this teacher then ranted for 45 minutes on why they felt the missionaries were out of line in even traveling to South America in order to spread the Gospel.

According to this student, the professor spent a good majority of the class time talking about how the missionaries had no right to try to force their culture on the Yanomamo. They went on about how the missionaries taught the group to speak English, again stressing that the infiltration of this group by Western culture is an abomination. What the professor failed to even acknowledge is that the missionaries visited the group with only the best of intentions. These are people who believe so strongly in their religion that they would risk their lives to make sure people all over the world have a chance to hear their story, and yet, to hear this professor speak, you would think they travel around the world with the sole intention of killing off as many people as possible.

The missionaries did not teach the Yanomamo tribe English in order to destroy their culture; they did it so they could better preach Christianity to them. I find it appalling that a professor, or anyone for that matter, could actually criticize missionaries for simply trying to do what they believe is right. As a matter of fact, missionaries are probably some of the most selfless people in the world. They are actually more concerned with trying to give others a chance to hear about their religion than anything else.

Of course, not content with simply putting down Christianity, this Anthropology professor took it one step further: they likened the entire fiasco to the war in Iraq. This professor commented that they believed Bush going to Iraq to spread democracy was a cover, and that he was really in Iraq in order to spread Christianity. Of course, this is ridiculous, but then again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how asinine that opinion is. What they are NOT entitled to is the right to teach it to a class as if it were fact rather than a viewpoint.

Christian views are simply not welcome in the classroom, and I've known that ever since a teacher in high school informed us that she was not allowed to tell us that she believed in God. But actually attacking Christianity and its followers is going a step too far. It's one thing for a professor to bash the man that a majority of the country voted for in November, but it's a completely different thing to attack an entire religious group. I wonder how the university system would react if a professor bashed Buddhism or Hinduism as part of his lecture.

Perhaps someone needs to send this professor a copy of the Bill of Rights and tell them that if they wanted to go around preaching their opinions, maybe they should have become a missionary rather than a professor at a state-supported university.

God Bless America

THE RIGHT ANGLE: God Bless America - Opinions

There is one major downfall to writing for a weekly paper. As I sit here writing my column, it is October 27th. I am a week away from the elections, and most of you will not read this until after they are over. I could take a week off from politics, but with everything that is about to happen in the next week, how can this political science nerd think of anything else?

This election season has been incredibly exciting for me. I've worked as an intern at the Bush/Cheney campaign since July. I've attended speeches, debates, rallies, and protests. I've been give the opportunity to make my conservative views known to the UNCG community by way of this column. I was even given the chance to debate liberal columnist Okla Elliot at Solaris a couple of weeks ago.

In turn, I've been ridiculed for working for Bush. I've been verbally abused by little old ladies who support Kerry. I have received large amounts of hate e-mail in response to my columns, as well as angry comments in my online blog and on the Carolinian website. At the Solaris debate, I received jeers, obscene gestures, and rude comments every time I tried to speak.

And you know what the best part is? I honestly wouldn't have it any other way.?
Every time someone yells, "Bush sucks!" in response to my GOP gear, every time I read a letter to the editor about how wrong I am, every time someone calls me a name, I am reminded of how great America is.

It's exactly what our forefathers wanted for us. We can hate our leaders, work to get them kicked out of office, and even threaten mass suicide if re-election occurs. We can burn pictures of Bush, we can burn flags, we can burn crosses... and okay, we can't burn abortion clinics, but we can protest them until our faces turn blue.?
Imagine living in a country where you live in constant fear of your government. Imagine not being able to pray to your deity of choice or speak your mind. You very rarely see large protests against the leaders in countries with authoritarian dictators. You can compare Bush to Hitler all you want to, but I have a feeling if you had compared Hitler to another crazy leader back in Nazi Germany, you would have been tossed in a concentration camp.

Although no one can agree on the exact wording of it, everyone knows that Voltaire said it best: "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I believe that with all my heart, and that's why I can despise Green Day's political views and still listen to their music religiously.

So go ahead, yell at me, call me names, tell me I'm stupid. If you see me on campus, tell me you think my column is the most closed-minded thing you've ever read in your life. I can't make you read it, and you can't make me change my mind, but we can all say what we want without fear that we'll get thrown in prison. It's the First Amendment that gives me hope even if Kerry is elected as president this week. It's my right to say how much I despise him and how I disagree with everything he does. And that, my friends, is why I love this country.

God bless America.

Oh No! A Republican!

Guest Column: Oh No! A Republican! - Letters to the Editor

I am a rarity on UNCG's campus. My binder is covered in (gasp) Pro-Bush bumper stickers. I have your basic Bush/Cheney stickers, some anti-Kerry stickers, and even a few stickers supporting Republicans in local elections.

I'm merely stating my opinions, something other students do everyday, something we have been encouraged to do for as long as I can remember, but apparently my opinions are WRONG. I know this by some of the looks and comments I have received. I had one student get in my face and call me a "white racist bitch." Until that moment, I was unaware that political affiliation determined whether or not you were racist.

I understand that there are people out there who feel that Bush has personally attacked them in one way or another. In the past year, I've been accused of being racist, homophobic, and closed-minded.

But in reality, which of us is more closed-minded? None of these people actually asked me about my views. They don't know that I don't support Bush's marriage amendment, or that I was rooting for John McCain in the 2000 primaries. The only thing they know for sure is that they don't like my binder.

In a lot of ways, I feel that my political affiliation is no different than race and/or sexual orientation. Honestly, I WISH I were a liberal at times. I've tried to get into that kind of mindset, but I just can't do it. This is how I am, and you are judging me for something I have no control over.

I want to take this moment to thank the few people who have commented positively on my Bush gear. Thank you for being different, for respecting and sharing my views. Thank you for letting me know that I'm not alone.

I also want to thank the people who don't necessarily agree with my views, but who commented on my "bravery". Even though you don't share my point of view, it's nice to hear words of encouragement every now and then.

Maybe you've seen my binder, my pins, or my Bush visor. Maybe you have an opinion on them, maybe you don't. Maybe you've wanted to tell me that you share my support, but you're too shy. If you agree with me, please let me know. Tell me you like my pins, ask me where I got my stickers, anything.

If you disagree with me, let me know that you support my right to freedom of speech. Tell me that you think it takes guts to tote my right-wing propaganda around this campus. Tell me why you disagree with Bush's policies, and ask me what I think of the controversial issues.

And if you really hate me with a passion the second you see my Bush gear, please try to keep it in. Yelling obscenities at me will not make me change my mind, and calling me hurtful names will only make me NOT want to support whomever you do.

I'm not trying to convert you. I just want a little respect.