that’s why he acted that way. So I feel like I can partially (on a much smaller level) relate to the average Muslim person a little easier. I can understand that when people hear news about an

This video is definitely alarming and quite scary. Yet, calling this video scary, and connecting this video to all Muslims are completely different things. Of course people in the US don’t want to see their country being attacked. But this video is using specific situations to make a (false) statement about an entire religion and ethnicity group.

The creators of this video are using fear tactics to create animosity towards Muslims in general. They’re not separating the average Muslim from the extremist. But when I see quotes like “Jihad’s goal is death to America”, there is definitely some one-sided thinking here. I don’t know a lot about Islam, but I know enough to realize that America’s death is not the goal of jihad. And even with my limited knowledge, it frustrates me to see people make false claims to the general public, knowing that someone will accept this as true.

It was interesting to read the comments made by Muslim students. Growing up Jewish, whenever a well-known Jewish person would do something bad (Bernie Madoff for example), it always made me extra uncomfortable because I knew that people would be thinking that he’s a Jew and that’s why he acted that way. So I feel like I can partially (on a much smaller level) relate to the average Muslim person a little easier. I can understand that when people hear news about an extremist Islamic group, most Muslims probably cringe because they know what will come from it. People stereotype so easily that even if the act is done by an extremist organization, the average person will still feel the repercussions. I also thought it was interesting how Muslim students find this scary, too. And it makes sense. We are all in the same boat because the average Muslim isn’t any closer to being a terrorist than the average Jew, Christian, or Buddhist. Just because the extreme Islamic groups are technically of the same religion as an average Muslim, this doesn’t connect Muslims with their extreme actions. I don’t see myself as being any closer to a Jewish extremist group than a Christian to the same Jewish extremist group. However, people have difficulty distinguishing extreme from normal, so they stereotype everyone into one category.

This video is definitely alarming and quite scary. Yet, calling this video scary, and connecting this video to all Muslims are completely different things. Of course people in the US don’t want to see their country being attacked. But this video is using specific situations to make a (false) statement about an entire religion and ethnicity group.

The creators of this video are using fear tactics to create animosity towards Muslims in general. They’re not separating the average Muslim from the extremist. But when I see quotes like “Jihad’s goal is death to America”, there is definitely some one-sided thinking here. I don’t know a lot about Islam, but I know enough to realize that America’s death is not the goal of jihad. And even with my limited knowledge, it frustrates me to see people make false claims to the general public, knowing that someone will accept this as true.

It was interesting to read the comments made by Muslim students. Growing up Jewish, whenever a well-known Jewish person would do something bad (Bernie Madoff for example), it always made me extra uncomfortable because I knew that people would be thinking that he’s a Jew and that’s why he acted that way. So I feel like I can partially (on a much smaller level) put myself in the shoes of the average Muslim person a little easier because of my connection to Judaism. I can understand that when people hear news about an extremist Islamic group, most Muslims probably cringe because they know what will come from it. People stereotype so easily that even if the act is done by an extremist organization, the average person will still feel the repercussions. I also thought it was interesting how Muslim students find this scary, too. And it makes sense. We are all in the same boat because the average Muslim isn’t any closer to being a terrorist than the average Jew, Christian, or Buddhist. Just because the extreme Islamic groups are technically of the same religion as an average Muslim, this doesn’t connect Muslims with their extreme actions. I don’t see myself as being any closer to a Jewish extremist group than a Christian to the same Jewish extremist group. However, people have difficulty distinguishing extreme from normal, so they stereotype everyone into one category.

So much of our lives are affected by our gender (where we live (if we’re in a dorm on campus), where we go to the bathroom, what types of jobs we can hold, and generally how we’re treated). I think the main reason why this question is causing such a problem is because the topic of transgenders (or any talk relating to people who don’t feel that they are actually the gender they were born into) is never brought up. This is an extremely taboo subject in the US (and probably other countries as well, though I don’t know for sure). No one wants to admit that there is a gray area in gender because it would have a lot of implications. The military is one major area that would need to reconsider its recruitment. The question of “who is a man?” would need to be looked at closely and an actual decision would have to be made. And it’s not a clear decision.

I understand that the job Devoureau held would preferably be done by a man. It would be like having a man measure women for bras at Victoria’s Secret. It just wouldn’t make the customers there feel comfortable. However, it seems like the company fired him because it was easier. It’s much easier to fire a transgender person than to really consider the question if he’s male or not. Although he didn’t disclose the types of surgery he got, he is considered a male by the state, so I don’t know how much more “male” he can become (at least legally). I believe that the company was being discriminatory against transgenders because for all legal purposes, Devoureau is a male.

It’s unfortunate that topics of sexuality and gender are so taboo. It’s publically known that there are people who don’t feel like they were born into the right gender, and that there are people who were born as hermaphrodites. But no one talks about it. I assume that everyone considers it easier to just ignore it until a problem occurs. This isn’t a good way to go about it though; people’s lives are affected by these decisions such as “who is a man?” and “who is a woman?” We are completely ignoring a group of people – acting as if they don’t exist. This is no way to deal with the situation.

While I don’t doubt that the amount of unaffiliated people has increased over the years, I find it hard to imagine (at least any time in the near future) that religion will become completely extinct. I’ve never been to another country, and I really don’t know that much about religion in different parts of the world, so my opinion is mostly based off of my experience with religion in the US. Nonetheless, just because the number of unaffiliated people is increasing does not mean that religion itself will become extinct. My main reason for believing this is because people are always going to want some answer as to how and why we are here and what happens after we die. As the world becomes more scientifically inclined, there is less of a desire to relate our existence here with any supernatural forces. However, I think the desire to have a purpose for being here is still prevalent in most people in society.

Also, a person can be religious without being affiliated with a particular religious group. The feeling of being religious is becoming more and more of a spiritual connection, rather than a prescription to follow certain customs, rituals, and regulations. Personally, I consider myself to be Jewish, but I don’t consider myself religious. This could be different than other religions because Judaism is largely cultural, not just religious. But I feel like regardless of the religion, people don’t need to consider themselves religious to be part of that group. Similarly, people don’t need to consider themselves in any group to still consider themselves to have spiritual or religious tendencies.

The article states that, “people will become so bored with what religious groups have to offer that they will look elsewhere”. I don’t agree with this statement. I don’t think it’s a matter of becoming bored with the religion, rather than it’s a lack of faith and belief. As we learned in sociology, religion is dependent upon faith. So, it isn’t unfathomable that in the far-off future, religion could become extinct (or at least much less prominent) in various countries, because faith seems to be declining. But, spiritual tendencies will likely outlast religion. Either way, I think we’re still a long way from religion becoming extinct.

There is obviously inequality between different classes in our society. But, as we discussed in class, the extent of the inequality isn’t well known. I come from an upper-middle class household. My dad’s a doctor and we’ve never had serious financial trouble. But, ever since I can remember, my dad has always talked about how unequal the wealth is distributed; not that he should get more money, but that the super rich are getting more rich, and the poor are becoming poorer. Most people assume that doctors would be less likely to point this out, and less likely to be so upset at it. On the contrary, he has always talked to me about how the wealthy are continuously getting wealthier because the people in office are providing them with more help than they provide many underprivileged people. We discussed in class how those around us shape our opinions, which gives me no doubt that my opinion on inequality has been shaped by the views of my parents. So, when we talked in class about the distribution of wealth, it didn’t surprise me so much as it just angered me even more.

When I really think about the wealth distribution in our country, and how the wealthy keep getting tax breaks and other benefits that allow their wealth to grow, it really does strike me as surprising that more people aren’t upset at this. Why aren’t people in the lower economic classes more infuriated? I think there could be multiple reasons for this. One is that they probably feel helpless. Most of them probably haven’t been given special privileges in the past, so it is likely that they feel that their frustration won’t help. Another reason is that not enough people know about this. This was proven in one of the charts that Dr. Richards showed us in class, comparing the actual distribution of wealth to what people think is the distribution. There is a major gap between reality and people’s beliefs. It’s awful that this isn’t more well known. Even if it was, though, from what we learned in class about activism, people may not even do anything about it. Hopefully, though, if the word can be spread more about this major inequality, something will eventually be done.

M. wrote, “maybe reading my story would inspire someone to work with kids and stop them from walking the path I chose in life.” However, we’ve been learning in sociology that the paths we take in life aren’t completely our choice. Yes, M. wasn’t fated to this path of life, and he could definitely have chosen another one. But, there are undoubtedly aspects of his life, the invisible strings, which made him more likely to choose his path of life. Nonetheless, maybe his writing will helps those whose invisible strings are pulling people’s lives in the wrong direction.

Many people commented on M.’s crime, saying that they couldn’t understand how he could have failed to act during the murder. If I were in a situation where I saw/knew someone was murdered, I would like to think that I would do something. And, I think in most situations, I would. But he was 14 years old and probably felt helpless and terrified for his life. I’m not saying that this is a valid excuse, because he still could have acted. However, if we were in his exact same situation, it’s impossible to know what anyone would do. It’s similar to the bystander effect. While we would like to think that we would help a random person in need, it is likely that we wouldn’t (or that we would give an excuse as to why we couldn’t help that person).

It’s really interesting to hear what M. has to say about his life, and about his time in prison. He seems to truly understand the enormity of his past actions, and the need for punishment. He also says he wants to be free. But either way, he seems to have accepted his place in prison. From my perspective, I find this to be a huge task. All of us, everyday, probably question if we are doing something meaningful with our lives. People want to know that they’ve made a difference with their lives in a positive way and that their existence has some sort of function and value. Being in a prison must be extremely psychologically challenging. I think it would be tremendously difficult to be in prison, and to still try to find a meaning out of your life. I’m not saying that people who are in prison don’t have a meaning to lives. What I’m saying is that it must be even more difficult to discover what that meaning is. However, M. seems to be succeeding in this aspect. While I’m sure it took a lot of time, and while he doesn’t want the focus to be on himself, it’s good that he turned his life into trying to help other inmates.

People often speak of marriage as if it’s analogous with love. But these two words aren’t always related. While many people in our society today get married because they love each other and feel a strong attachment to each other, that is not always the case. For thousands of years, people married based off of necessity. Even now, marriage doesn’t prove love. While it would be nice for everyone to marry based off of love, marriage itself really only allows two people two connect their lives economically and legally. Even though it’s a legal contract, however, the divorce rate in the United States, where so many people claim marriage to be sacred, is quite high. Why, then, do so many people claim that homosexual marriage should be forbidden? There are many reasons to this (most stemming from a religious context) but none really make sense. And more importantly, all of the reasons are discriminatory.
Zach Wahls doesn’t look any different from an “average” man. Just from seeing him and listening to him speak, no one would guess that he has two moms. He’s living proof that homosexual parents don’t have a negative impact on their children. Many people will argue, though, that having homosexual parents will cause the child to go through teasing and taunting while growing up. However, this will likely happen regardless. Almost all children are teased at some point. Providing that as a reason to not allow homosexual marriages is just making an excuse.
In class, we talked about the role of the family. Families are supposed to provide assistance like emotional support and shelter. Homosexual parents can fulfill all of the key functions of a family. Two moms or two dads can protect and help their children just as much as a mom and a dad can. Zach Wahls testified that his family is really no different from a family with heterosexual parents. A topic like this – who a person is allowed to marry – shouldn’t even be an issue. But, unfortunately, it is. The only way to move past it is for people to stop focusing on nonsensical reasons to keep homosexual marriage illegal and to realize that it is no different from a heterosexual marriage.

This article reminds me of what we talked about in class - just because people’s lifestyle and financial system changes, the person doesn’t change. So, with the example in class, even though the group of people stole a large amount of money and bought an expensive home, they sold all of the expensive items in it because they didn’t understand the value of them. This was because they weren’t from the social class of the wealthy. Similarly with the article on here, many people don’t know what to do with their money. There seems to often be a lack of organization for those who win the lottery.
What makes people happy is an interesting topic to think about. Most kids are probably told by their parents that “money doesn’t buy happiness”. Like the article said, money can increase people’s happiness, but only to a certain extent. Going form making $500,000 per year to $600,000 per year will likely not make a person, overall, happier. There are many sociological factors that determine our happiness, but it seems like money isn’t a large determinant.
The one woman in the article, who had been working four jobs before she won the lottery, said that the people around her changed – that because of the money, her friends were becoming greedy, and her family wanted control. Even though she won the lottery and an outsider would think that this would make everything better, she still lives in the same social class, where those around her would likely want the money too (because they are having the same kind of financial problems that the woman had before the lottery). Another man who won the lottery worried that he wouldn’t be able to stay in the same hometown, probably because of the people in it (and their possible greed for the money).
The idea that money makes people happy must be sociological. Money, by itself, is only paper. However, it allows people access to materials and experiences that will, or so they think, bring them happiness. But why do people always want more? And why do they always think that more material items will make them happier? It could be because of what we see in the media, with the rich seeming to live perfect lives, free of troubles. Even if their lives appear perfect, that doesn’t mean they actually are – and that doesn’t mean that they are happy.

It is not surprising that news reports like this one cause parents to fear for the safety of their children. If there is even a slight chance that a random person will attempt to kidnap a child, all parents will become worried that it could be their kid. And, statistically, it could. But, the chances of that are extremely rare. Like we discussed in class, someone has to win the lottery, but the odds of it being you are so rare that it’s a waste of money to play the lottery. Because of this reason, many people who know the statistics don’t bother putting money into the lottery. However, when the risk is your child’s safety, many parents take this more seriously. I can understand why parents are afraid of child abduction even though the odds are against their own child being abducted, though. When it comes to the safety of your child, you don’t want to take any chances. On the other hand, as we discussed in class, why isn’t anyone afraid of driving their child to a friend’s house five minutes away? A person is most likely going to get into an accident at a location closer to his or her house. However, people don’t worry about this like they worry about the random event of their child being abducted by a stranger.
Also, while many people know the statistics of playing the lottery, I doubt that many know the statistics for stranger child abduction. With the 24/7 news casts that we have now, one random even (like a kidnapping) seems more common because every step of the abduction, search, and rescue are followed for hours. When we follow a news story in such detail, and hear about how it was completely random, we worry that this could have been our own child, brother, sister, or relative. Although the risk analyses show that this is extremely unlikely to happen, the consequences that would occur if it did happen outweigh (at least in people’s mind) the statistics.
We discussed in class that people decide risk based off of what we think, not on the actual, numerical risk. So, when people think that something is likely to happen, that matters more than what the actual statistics tell us. That’s why people think that their child could be kidnapped when they see someone else’s child was. In the video, they interviewed a mother who told her child that he needs to hold her hand while walking down the street because there are people who may try to kidnap him. While this is technically true, the odds of it are so slim that it doesn’t make sense to change your behavior based off of these rare occurrences. However, if it is a family member that is the possible target, it’s not surprising that emotions surpass logical judgments.