THE RIGHT ANGLE: Anti-War Coalition Identity Crisis - Opinions
Someone up there has a really screwed-up sense of humor. And no, I'm not referring to heaven when I say "up there." I'm referring to the Office of Student Life.
Those of you that keep up with my online blog (link below) may have been shocked at a picture I posted a few weeks ago. I have actually been approached by students on campus asking if it was a joke, or an altered photo. Unfortunately the picture is one I snapped myself, and it is nothing more than a photo of the sign outside cubicle 225M in the EUC. Two campus organizations share an office here as of about a month ago: the College Republicans and the Anti-War Coalition.
I have this mental image of people in OSL getting bored over the summer and thinking this up. "Hey, know what we should do? Make the College Republicans share their office with the Anti-War Coalition! That'll be a good time..."
Since the College Republicans have occupied this space for years now, it is of course already decorated with American flags and Republican paraphernalia. For several weeks, no one heard or saw any sign of the Anti-War Coalition in 225M. And then one day, out of nowhere, a couple CRs found evidence of their cubicle-mates' existence: someone had tacked up a piece of paper that read, "This wall reserved for the AWC."
I had heard about this from several members, and finally went up to the office to check it out. A CR had cleared off the back wall that the other group had "reserved", and there was nothing but a "Bring Them Home" postcard hanging now. That is, of course, to be expected. I was fairly surprised, however, to find a pro-abortion flier taped to the top of the AWC's cabinet. The flier advertised an event being sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, although down at the bottom someone had scribbled, "Also sponsored by the Anti-War Coalition."
Now, THAT is interesting. I found myself wondering what war and abortion had in common, and why a group that was against one was very supportive of the other. I couldn't help but feel that the flier had been placed there to annoy the pro-life CRs. Why else would the Anti-War Coalition feel the need to co-sponsor an event on women's rights?
As I left the cubicle and started walking to the door, I glanced towards the Socialists' cubicle. Leaning half in and half out of their office was a large sign that read, "Join the Anti-War Coalition."
Last year, I met a girl that was in the AWC who got very annoyed when everyone just assumed she was a Socialist as well. But now I understand everyone's confusion - apparently, if you are anti-war, you must be anti-capitalism as well.
Now I'm torn, because I'm not sure what to believe. Either the AWC is just an offshoot of the ISO (who thought that maybe people wouldn't be quite as annoyed being harassed by them if they pretended to be two different groups), or they're proving my theory that liberals don't believe in a middle ground of any kind (i.e., if you're anti-war, you must subscribe to all other liberal theories as well). If that's the case, then no wonder the liberals think I'm crazy. After all, how can someone claim to be a Republican and still hold some of the liberal views that I do?
Then again, maybe the Socialists don't have such a bad idea. Maybe the College Republicans should start creating offshoot groups: the Pro-War Coalition, Students for Life, Second Amendment Supporters. Maybe then they'll have a chance to score extra office spaces as well.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
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.
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.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Listening to Both Sides
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Listening to both sides - Opinions
A couple of weeks ago, I attended UNCG's final Debate Watch. As many of you know, the final presidential debate was a real snoozer. Let's face it: none of us watching the debate were expecting to learn anything new about the issues. We just wanted to see someone make an idiot out of themselves.
But I wasn't just a viewer at this Debate Watch. I had volunteered to be a discussion leader. This meant that after the debate was over, I had to engage a group of students in intelligent conversation about the issues. And throughout all of this, I had to be bipartisan.
Like most groups there, mine tended to lean toward the left. I sat there, gritting my teeth as I forced myself to not correct some of the participants' extremely misguided views. Luckily for them (and you!), I wrote down the question and answers, and I'm going to give you a little political lesson, because we all know how dangerous uninformed voting is!
THE QUESTION: What was discussed that you found irrelevant?
THEIR ANSWER: Bush's answer for everything was "education". More education will not help unemployment.
MY REPLY: I'm not sure about you, but there's a reason I'm in college: it's because I don't plan on being a waitress forever. Now, if you're in a major that is difficult to find a job in, well, that's not my problem. But for the most part, people go to college to make themselves more desirable to future employers. Bush's plan is one of the best I've heard: allow people whose jobs have been shipped overseas to go back to school. America is moving forward right now, and we're seeing a need for more and more jobs that require certain skills. Yes, we are losing some jobs, and even Kerry admitted there was nothing that could be done about that. But rather than sit around and cry about it, Bush wants to give these people the skills that they need to find a new job. How can anyone say that education is irrelevant here?
THE QUESTION: What is the most important issue in this election?
THEIR (FIRST) ANSWER: Iraq.
MY REPLY: Iraq is a big issue, and understandably so. We have thousands of American soldiers over there, bravely trying to make the world a safer place. And while I would love to see the troops come home as quickly as possible, I know that cannot happen immediately. My heart goes out to all the troops and their loved ones, but when I see antiwar protestors, I just want to scream at them and remind them that THERE WAS NOT A DRAFT. The soldiers in Iraq signed up for service, knowing that they could be called to duty at any time. When we first sent troops over to Iraq, the entire country was fairly certain that they posed an imminent threat to us. Now that we're there, we can't just pull out without regard to the Iraqis because of faulty intelligence, military scandals, or whiny antiwar protestors. I have faith that Bush will do the right thing in making sure Iraq's future is as secure as possible. I do not feel that Kerry has any right commanding our troops; the mindset that caused us to pull out of Vietnam prematurely and resulted in the massacre of over 3.5 million people is the same mindset that Kerry had then and still has today.
THE QUESTION: Most important issue?
THEIR (SECOND) ANSWER: We should make healthcare/higher education available to everyone.
MY REPLY: I know that everyone's basis for this theory is that Europe has universal healthcare. Well, yes, Europe does have universal healthcare and it works just fine for them. But the last time I checked, we are not a European nation. I love my country, but America has this way of screwing things up. Look at our public education system: it's not the greatest thing in the world. Do we really want our healthcare system to look like our public school system? For that matter, do we want our higher education to look like our public school system? Everything that works for Europe will not necessarily work over here. Besides, you can't complain about high taxes and then whine about not having universal healthcare, because no matter what Kerry tells you, you WILL be paying for that healthcare plan with your hard earned money. I'm not sure where he thinks money like that comes from. Perhaps he thinks we all had the good fortune of marrying a widowed millionaire?
So to make it simple for all you debate-watchers, what we have here are two distinct choices: we can vote for a man with several unspoken "plans", who does not take human life into consideration when ending a military conflict, and who thinks that you won't notice if he raises taxes to pay for his billion dollar, still unspoken "plans"; or we can re-elect the man who wants to improve your chances of getting a job, who cares about the welfare of people all over the globe, and who wants to give Americans the right to put more of their hard-earned money into their pockets. For lower taxes, compassion, common sense, and someone who knows where they stand at all times, re-elect George W. Bush in 2004.
A couple of weeks ago, I attended UNCG's final Debate Watch. As many of you know, the final presidential debate was a real snoozer. Let's face it: none of us watching the debate were expecting to learn anything new about the issues. We just wanted to see someone make an idiot out of themselves.
But I wasn't just a viewer at this Debate Watch. I had volunteered to be a discussion leader. This meant that after the debate was over, I had to engage a group of students in intelligent conversation about the issues. And throughout all of this, I had to be bipartisan.
Like most groups there, mine tended to lean toward the left. I sat there, gritting my teeth as I forced myself to not correct some of the participants' extremely misguided views. Luckily for them (and you!), I wrote down the question and answers, and I'm going to give you a little political lesson, because we all know how dangerous uninformed voting is!
THE QUESTION: What was discussed that you found irrelevant?
THEIR ANSWER: Bush's answer for everything was "education". More education will not help unemployment.
MY REPLY: I'm not sure about you, but there's a reason I'm in college: it's because I don't plan on being a waitress forever. Now, if you're in a major that is difficult to find a job in, well, that's not my problem. But for the most part, people go to college to make themselves more desirable to future employers. Bush's plan is one of the best I've heard: allow people whose jobs have been shipped overseas to go back to school. America is moving forward right now, and we're seeing a need for more and more jobs that require certain skills. Yes, we are losing some jobs, and even Kerry admitted there was nothing that could be done about that. But rather than sit around and cry about it, Bush wants to give these people the skills that they need to find a new job. How can anyone say that education is irrelevant here?
THE QUESTION: What is the most important issue in this election?
THEIR (FIRST) ANSWER: Iraq.
MY REPLY: Iraq is a big issue, and understandably so. We have thousands of American soldiers over there, bravely trying to make the world a safer place. And while I would love to see the troops come home as quickly as possible, I know that cannot happen immediately. My heart goes out to all the troops and their loved ones, but when I see antiwar protestors, I just want to scream at them and remind them that THERE WAS NOT A DRAFT. The soldiers in Iraq signed up for service, knowing that they could be called to duty at any time. When we first sent troops over to Iraq, the entire country was fairly certain that they posed an imminent threat to us. Now that we're there, we can't just pull out without regard to the Iraqis because of faulty intelligence, military scandals, or whiny antiwar protestors. I have faith that Bush will do the right thing in making sure Iraq's future is as secure as possible. I do not feel that Kerry has any right commanding our troops; the mindset that caused us to pull out of Vietnam prematurely and resulted in the massacre of over 3.5 million people is the same mindset that Kerry had then and still has today.
THE QUESTION: Most important issue?
THEIR (SECOND) ANSWER: We should make healthcare/higher education available to everyone.
MY REPLY: I know that everyone's basis for this theory is that Europe has universal healthcare. Well, yes, Europe does have universal healthcare and it works just fine for them. But the last time I checked, we are not a European nation. I love my country, but America has this way of screwing things up. Look at our public education system: it's not the greatest thing in the world. Do we really want our healthcare system to look like our public school system? For that matter, do we want our higher education to look like our public school system? Everything that works for Europe will not necessarily work over here. Besides, you can't complain about high taxes and then whine about not having universal healthcare, because no matter what Kerry tells you, you WILL be paying for that healthcare plan with your hard earned money. I'm not sure where he thinks money like that comes from. Perhaps he thinks we all had the good fortune of marrying a widowed millionaire?
So to make it simple for all you debate-watchers, what we have here are two distinct choices: we can vote for a man with several unspoken "plans", who does not take human life into consideration when ending a military conflict, and who thinks that you won't notice if he raises taxes to pay for his billion dollar, still unspoken "plans"; or we can re-elect the man who wants to improve your chances of getting a job, who cares about the welfare of people all over the globe, and who wants to give Americans the right to put more of their hard-earned money into their pockets. For lower taxes, compassion, common sense, and someone who knows where they stand at all times, re-elect George W. Bush in 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
