en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/5380716 Comments by ing321 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/12/07/voices-from-the-classroom-223/#IDComment513272600 I actually had a confrontation with my mom and my grandma over thanksgiving break. I should preface this by giving a brief background of my life. My dad was in the military when I was younger so I’ve lived all over the United States. I also lived in Germany for 3 years, and traveled all over Europe during that time. When I was 11 years old, we settled down in a suburb of Scranton, PA. So in the beginning of my life, I interacted with people from all over, and was used to diversity. Living in a suburb of Scranton, I went to a predominately white school with maybe 15 people of color in the whole school. However, if you go into Scranton, or look at the racial make-up of Scranton High School, a large percentage of the population is black. My cousin who has been living in the city for some time (bad parts of the city as in she’s living in shelters and eating at soup kitchens and joined job placement programs) just started dating this guy a couple months ago and he happens to be black. My cousin called up my mom to ask if he could come over to our house for thanksgiving (all of my immediate family comes over to our house for thanksgiving), and of course my mom says yes. However, as soon as she got off the phone she became very concerned. She said she was worried because she didn’t know this kid and she didn’t know if he was going to take any of our things. She then proceeded to say how he might go back and tell his buddies he went to someplace “nice” for thanksgiving, basically insinuating that they would want to come back and rob us. My grandma supported my mom’s concerns saying how she has a right to be uncomfortable, and maybe he shouldn’t come over, etc. I seriously could not believe the two of them. They did not know a thing about this guy other than his skin color, that he lived in the city, and that he was dating my cousin. And they both automatically jumped to the conclusion that he would want to steal our stuff, or could be a bad kid. We ended up getting in this big argument over it. Needless to say, my cousin and her boyfriend ended up not coming to thanksgiving because they “sensed some hostility about him coming” (And the hostility was not from my mom or grandma, it was from other family members). While this story can make my mom come off as a bad person, she has a good backing to her reasoning. She spent the majority of her teenage years in inner-city LA. At one point in her life, she was attacked by a young black man. She also spent time in high school as a part of a group that would patrol communities to help prevent and reduce the rate of crime. It was just interesting to see her perspective with her background compared to my perspective especially after being in this class. Sat, 8 Dec 2012 02:04:22 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/12/07/voices-from-the-classroom-223/#IDComment513272600 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-213/#IDComment507914727 I’ve always thought of myself as a rational and peaceful person. Even if someone was attacking me in an alleyway, I doubt I could do more than kick and push to try to get away. Then, over break I watched an episode of Criminal Minds where two students were given guns and told they had to shoot each other. One of them was a girl, and she was told her family was threatened unless she shot first. She also had a shock collar on, that they used whenever she disobeyed. So she did as they said. There was a lot more to the episode, but this was the first time I actually thought, “wow, if I was in that situation, I could do that. I could actually kill someone.” That being said, I know the question is what would it take for us to be “whipped into frenzy” enough to want to kill someone if our way of life or society was threatened. I feel like we look at the Holocaust and the Germans and think how could people be that crazy? How could they believe something so easily and do something they would never normally think to do, like kill another human being? But then I think about Americans. What if the government and the media told us that a large group of people (like of a specific race or religion, and I’m talking like in the millions) living here were actually martyrs and all planned to blow up different buildings all across the country, or maybe try to take over a bunch of buildings in every town and city and overthrow the government. And we needed to herd them together to exterminate them, or we all had to go out and hunt them down. And my best friends and my boyfriend and my parents all believed everything they heard and fully supported this idea. Now, I still don’t think I could kill someone, but could I support the killing, maybe. It sounds crazy, but the idea that everything around me could be gone or we could all be prisoners, and everyone around me hates this group of people…it would be hard to remain objective. It’s the idea that if everyone else around you believes it, it’s so easy to get caught up in the “mob mentality.” As Sam also said, proximity to the person has a big play in how easy it would be for me to kill too. Looking into the face of someone as I shot them would be unbearable. It would be different if they pointed a gun at me, but to shoot an unarmed person, I don’t think I could. And if it was a child, no way. I would feel like I could rescue them or something. But if it was just pushing a button and thousands of miles away a bomb went off, or a rocket crashed down, that’s a different story. Not that in any way I think I could do it easily, but it would be easier. Sun, 2 Dec 2012 17:20:27 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-213/#IDComment507914727 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-209/#IDComment494603186 I think the hardest part about trying to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes” is literally the putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. As humans, it’s in our nature to be selfish and think about ourselves. As Americans, it’s part of our culture to act or feel like we’re superior to other countries, or in even smaller cases, superior to people who do not fit the societal norms. We spend time with the people most like us. Now of course, some people may think this is not true of themselves. They have friends of many different racial groups. But what about gender? Do you spend the majority of your time with one gender? What about religion? Or politics? Or hobbies? Chances are, your friends are your friends because they share stuff in common with you. And yes, you may learn from them from some differences, but that’s not the point. The point is that unless you have a friend, or an interest in particular group, or are specially educated on the specific topic, you probably will not have much true information to base your opinion when “trying to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.” You don’t know why they think what they think. You might not even know what they really think. You don’t their life, or their traditions, or their societal views or pressures. The only way to put yourself into someone else’s shoes is to insert all that you know into a context that you make up and base your opinions off of your assumptions of how they feel/what they would think in a situation. Because of this, the less you can relate or understand a group, the harder it is to make an educated view off of trying to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes.” In the case of Muslims, I believe Americans have an especially hard time due to the media. We are fed information in the news, more often than not portraying Muslims in a negative light. Because of this, Americans have a warped view of them. It’s the same as when any smaller group part of a large group is viewed negatively because of something they did. This casts negative views on the larger group to the people who only hear about the group in terms of what the smaller group did. Kind of like with the Penn State scandal. After Joepa was fired, Penn State students were portrayed by the media as crazy college students who cared more about football than about morality or the victims. Because of the small group of students who went to the extreme during the riots, all Penn State students were viewed from the outside as the same. Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:50:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-209/#IDComment494603186 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/06/voices-from-the-classroom-203/#IDComment487650964 I personally don’t view homosexuality as a “special” sin. I view it just the same as any other act in the list from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. That being said, I feel like most of society, and especially college students with regards to that list, view it as a special sin. I believe that each person is tempted more by some sins then they are others. Homosexuality is not something a majority of people are tempted with in their life. Most of the other sins on the list have become normal, or acceptable to commit in our culture. And because of this, most people view them as not a big deal or even as something that isn’t wrong. But because the majority of people don’t deal with homosexual temptations in their life, or they do but are trying to control them, it’s easier for them to point their fingers at people who are dealing with it(as in committing homosexual acts) as being sinful. Homosexuality is still seen as something different, against the norm. Once society accepts it a normal behavior, it will become like almost every other sin on the list, something people commit without even giving a second thought to the fact that it is wrong. Going off of the fact that people see it as a special sin because they and the majority of the population don’t struggle with it, I think it also has to do with contact. Sam talk all the time in class about how to become comfortable with race issues and not see differences is to become so familiar with them and have contact with people. I feel like a lot of people think they don’t know anyone who struggles with homosexuality, or if they do, they either brush it off(like pretend they don’t notice) or they aren’t really close with the person. This allows people to have a distant and impersonal view of homosexuality. As a Christian, I do believe homosexuality is a sin. That being said, we’re all sinners. Who are we to judge others or condemn them when we ourselves are just as bad if not worse? We just might sin differently than them. Another saying I like, “You can hate the sin, and love the person.” One thing that bothered me though is the fact that Sam failed to clarify the whole point of verses 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. He proceeded to state all the sins listed, and then said that if anyone commits any of those sins, Christians believe they are going to hell. Which is true. However, the whole point of the verses is to point out that everyone sins, whether they try not to or not. It’s human nature to sin (thanks to Adam and Eve). But the whole view of Christianity is that because we are sinners, and yet god loves us so much, in order to have eternal life with God, we must believe that Jesus died on the cross to cleanse us of our sins. So even though we sin, we are forgiven in God’s eyes because Jesus died for us. “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offender nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Mon, 12 Nov 2012 03:33:27 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/11/06/voices-from-the-classroom-203/#IDComment487650964 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/24/voices-from-the-classroom-194/#IDComment475278422 Doing this exercise really opened up my eyes. I know I’m a people watcher. I like watching people, seeing how they dress and act and interact with others. And yes, my mom also taught me not to judge a book by its cover. I’ve grown up observing and subconsciously making assumptions about people, but never believing them to be fully true because people are much more complex than initial looks. There’s always more to the story, more behind the scenes. If I saw the first guy on the street, I would find him unapproachable. Not because he’s scary, but because he looks really intimidating mostly due to the hair, hat, and headphones. This is just because I’ve never interacted with someone who had that “air” about them. I would think he’s kinda cool, and not really someone who would get into trouble. But taking everything I know about him, he becomes a lot more complex. Obviously since he’s at Penn State and a TA for the Soc 119 class, he has to be smart. He has beats headphones, and a “life’s good” t-shirt on. From this plus seeing him in the front of the class, I can tell he’s a guy who’s fun to be around. I’ve seen him smile a lot and make jokes. The second guy would also be unapproachable if I saw him on the street. Less intimidating, but I’d be more unsure of how I’d think he’d act. This video gives a bad first impression because both him and the first guy look emotionless, and the way he looks down and then over makes him seen kind of shady. Plus the fact that he’s chewing on something and he’s standing hunched over. But again, on closer look I notice his headphones, cartoon T-shirt, and camo backpack. The girl looks friendly. That might just be because of the way she is standing and the fact that she smiles. Also, it doesn’t help that I’m a white female and she’s the most like me. I would guess she’s in a major that deals with people. Some people said they thought she looked like a sorority girl, but I disagree. The third guy looks approachable to me. He looks like someone who would be in a science type major, most likely physical/applied science. I would assume he’s quiet around people he doesn’t know or in large groups. The fourth guy looks the most unapproachable to me. Just because of the way he is looking at the camera, standing sideways, wearing a hat covering his eyes, and the fact that his ears are pierced. The fifth guy is someone that I wouldn’t really think that much specifically about. He doesn’t have any accessories that hint at his personality. Because of this, I would find him semi-unapproachable, meaning that I wouldn’t normally approach him, but he’s more approachable than guy 1, 2, or 4. Obviously, the woman at the end looks super friendly. I would see her as a mother figure, someone who would be willing to help or talk to anyone. Her smile, head movement, her shirt, and the way she looks at the camera all make me feel at ease. Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:49:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/24/voices-from-the-classroom-194/#IDComment475278422 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/16/voices-from-the-classroom-188/#IDComment469593743 The “whose land is it now” exercise in class was really interesting. Before that exercise, if anyone had asked me my opinion on the matter, I would have immediately had a response, but now I don’t know to respond. Starting out with the first generation where the girl (in class) pushed the first guy off his land, the answer is easy. Obviously the land belongs to him and he deserves to get it back from her. But after that, the answer gets a little fuzzier. The girl then had a son who lived on that land, and guy number one had a son as well. If guy number one still had the land, it would then be passed to his son. So then maybe his son should still have rightful ownership of the land and deserves it back. But now someone else lives on the land that is theirs because it was passed down to them from their parent. If the son was to get his land back, he would be uprooting someone else, and essentially doing what the girl originally did (kicking someone off their land). It’s the same thing for the grandchildren. In the end, I still feel like the original guy and all his descendants have a right to the land. The girl’s descendants have a right to the land through her, but she acquired it through a bad action, so her ownership of it is invalid. It’s just a hard question because her descendants are just stuck in the middle of situation and end up being forced out of their land and homes. I’m really glad we’re talking about the Native Americans and the situation they’re in. I feel like many people don’t know about it, or know very little, including me. It’s so weird to think that something as big as our government kicking people off their rightful land and having a hand in destroying the way of life of a group of people still exists. And that it’s been going on for so long. And that we’re just letting it happen. It was really interesting having someone in the situation above(a grandchild with rights to land) in class. Side note—I feel like sam seriously knows everyone. I feel like he always has someone to speak or come to class that represents every situation we talk about, which is awesome. But anyway, it was weird to link a face to the situation. We can sit in class and play games like “whose land is it now” but this is real life for some people, it’s not hypothetical. Hearing him talk about driving through the land that should be his people’s and being taxed was hard to hear. And obviously I feel bad for him and their situation, but how do we fix it? It goes back to the game we played in class and the fact that the question starts to get fuzzy when people take a step back and look at the situation when faces are removed. Mon, 22 Oct 2012 03:37:26 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/16/voices-from-the-classroom-188/#IDComment469593743 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/10/voices-from-the-classroom-180/#IDComment464013237 Free will versus determinism is something I’ve thought about a lot actually. I feel like throughout my life, I‘ve always thought determinism played a bigger role. No matter what you do, or what choice you make, there is always something in your past or morals or views on life that made you make that decision. There’s no way around that. Take the example of people becoming successful because they “worked harder” and “had the drive to want to work harder.” There were probably many things in their life that they experienced or saw that shaped them into the type of person who would have that type of motivation. So when people say it’s free will, and that the person made the decision to want to work hard to move up, the decision was actually shaped by events that determined that outcome. So then isn’t that not free will? Tammy’s story is one of the kinds of stories I don’t like to hear. Not because I want to pretend they don’t exist, but because I can’t decide which side I agree with. On one hand, I look at her situation and know that there are so many things against her, we should feel responsible (or at least maybe feel generous) to help her. She can’t help it that her father had so many kids, or that she grew up in a poor family. She can’t help it that her husband left her(or maybe she could have). But on the other hand, I feel like there are more things she can do to help herself that she is not doing. Things like cleaning the house to create a better environment or taking care of herself create a better image of a person who is actually trying to better their life. But she could do other things like work a second job, donate plasma, support her kids in their aspirations, maybe not have as many kids, or not (like some people said) marry someone who would leave(but maybe that wasn’t her fault). As for her having to walk 10 miles a day for work, why can’t she ask someone for a ride? And why should my hard-earned money that could go towards something for me or my family be sent to help pay for her medical bills? And what if she gets assistance and then stops working? Isn’t it like the article that said giving food to developing countries doesn’t help them, it actually hurts them because we’re sustaining them at the level their at; we’re not helping them improve. It’s the same way with assistance in the form of money. What percentage of people actually uses the assistance to help them move up and better their lives, and what percentage doesn’t? Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:59:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/10/voices-from-the-classroom-180/#IDComment464013237 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/03/voices-from-the-classroom-176/#IDComment457842756 In class, we discussed the possible reasons why Asians and Whites have a higher average household income than Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. We also saw a graph showing Blacks having the highest percentage of their population under the poverty line, followed closely by Hispanics. I think the chart that really surprised me though was the last chart, showing the average net worth of individual families. The average white household was $110,000; while black families had an average of about $5,000. I think the biggest and main reason for these differences is culture and the area the majority of people live. A large percent of both the Black and Hispanic population live in “bad” areas (Bad meaning high crime rate, high drug use, high population density, low income). Children born in these areas are more likely to have unstable home lives do to the surroundings, go to an under-privileged school, and be raised in a culture that perpetuates the cycle. One of the students in the class even said black culture is more materialistic and less about saving and investing. All of these things combined are more conducive to teen pregnancy, single-family homes, lower college and job aspirations, and reckless spending, all adding up to a lower average salary and net worth of each household. Again, this is not Black or Hispanic culture, but rather the culture found in “bad” areas, which is where a large percentage of the Black and Hispanic population live. White and Asians are on the other side of the spectrum. At least I think. This is where it gets difficult, as Sam reminds us to not look at our individual perspectives but rather, society as a whole. Being a white myself, the majority of (white) people I know are expected to go to college. No question. And I would assume that is how it is all across the country, assuming the majority of white people live in towns/suburbs across America or the better parts of cities. Going off this assumption, children would be born into areas with more stable home lives(meaning that the family probably already has more money and net worth than the black or Hispanic household in a “bad” area), attend a well-resourced public school or private school, and be raised in a culture that has certain expectations. These expectations would include working, going to college, and carrying on the lifestyle they grew up in. As stated in class, another factor could be that the Asians that come to the U.S. are ones with money and more education, therefore their salaries would be higher, and their kids are likely to follow in their footsteps—keeping Asians at the top. This idea supports the fact that the “rich” stay rich and the “poor” stay poor. It’s easy to stay at the level you’re born into. Mon, 8 Oct 2012 01:12:45 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/10/03/voices-from-the-classroom-176/#IDComment457842756 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/27/what-are-your-thoughts-on-what-people-are-saying-in-the-comments-section/#IDComment452553746 Last week in class, we discussed a picture posted on Reddit of a girl from Ohio State University. The whole purpose of the picture was to poke fun at this girl, as she happened to have facial hair. The girl, Balpreet Kaur, happened to hear about the article, and wrote an amazing response in which she informed people of her religion and the traditions she carries out. People on Reddit commended her for her response. After hearing the story myself, all I could do was have the utmost respect for her. To walk around being misunderstood and prejudged, and knowing this but still having the courage and confidence to be who she wants to be is amazing. This past week, an article was posted in the New York daily news about Reddit and her response. I couldn’t believe the comments people posted. One woman wrote, “…what planet do you live on. Be honest, would you date this ‘amazing’ woman? Or any woman with this much hair on her face? I bet not. What is she even trying to prove? I'm even wondering what kind of job she holds down.” This comment completely blew me away. The fact that Balpreet doesn’t fit into the norms of society’s definition of beautiful and “dateable” bothered this woman enough to comment. Why in the world does this even matter? How does this girl’s choices affect the woman? It’s none of her business. “What is she even trying to prove?” Who said she was trying to prove anything? This girl made a choice about her body, once again a choice that is no one’s business but her own. She believes this to be the right choice for her. She’s not trying to push her decision on anyone. “I’m wondering what kind of job she holds down.” Once again, why does this even matter? And why should her appearance affect what kind of job she can get? In reality though, its people like this women who are the only reason her job stability would be in question. People who judge before they know a person, can’t accept anyone that doesn’t fit “cultural ideals,” and give their opinions on things that aren’t their business. One woman was so concerned about Balpreet being able to find a husband. Once again, not her business. But don’t these people realize that a woman (Kaur) who is this committed to her faith, will probably not marry outside of her religion? In which case, the men will probably find her choice as one of strength and respect. And even if she did marry outside or her religion, I doubt she would want to be married to someone who couldn’t support her in her own personal decisions. So the men this woman is scared Balpreet won’t attract (because she doesn’t fit the norm) aren’t even men Balpreet would want (because they only want women that fit in or appeal to their like of the norm). So once again, the concern is unneeded. Mon, 1 Oct 2012 03:58:39 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/27/what-are-your-thoughts-on-what-people-are-saying-in-the-comments-section/#IDComment452553746 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/18/voices-from-the-classroom-166/#IDComment447267514 I guess after the past couple weeks, one of the main questions I have is why can’t “safe words” be determined for races? I feel like one of the big issues we talked about the one week was how everyone has different opinions on what words can and shouldn’t be used. It was said that we have to take each person separately because you never know what will offend someone. I feel like this is where many of the race relations problems stem from as a white person. I feel really uncomfortable talking about race issues around people that aren’t white because I’m so scared I’m going to say the wrong word and offend someone. However, even when I’m around white people, I feel like I always have to insert some comment like, “I don’t know what term is appropriate,” or say the term in a quiet, ashamed voice. Take the example of the girl in class. She accidently said a phrase that offended someone and a huge ordeal was made of it. Now she’s likely never to speak out in class again, and I know as a white person, I’m a ton more hesitant to raise my hand or speak out. Not out of fear of sharing my opinion, but rather I might use the wrong term and offend someone. How are we even supposed to begin talking about race issues (other than this topic) when we’re worried about the vocabulary we’re using? I don’t understand (but maybe that’s because I’m white) why it is so hard for a standardized term to be selected. I know that obviously any word picked would still have people objecting to it, but at least it would be uniformly acceptable, and the worry of offending people is removed from the individual. And yes, it would be hard to decide who gets the final word, and who gets to make that decision for their entire race, but I feel like it’s a big enough issue that it’s important. Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:58:38 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/18/voices-from-the-classroom-166/#IDComment447267514 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/12/voices-from-the-classroom-162/#IDComment442125173 Like several people said, I had to listen to this question several times before I actually understood what it meant and how it applied. And for once I actually agree with Sam. The idea of focusing on differences so that we could eventually not “notice” them seems so counterintuitive. However, when you watch it play out and think of examples in your life, it actually makes sense. The idea of recognizing someone’s difference from you when you first meet them and as you get to know them seems like a weird idea. But it would actually allow you to get to know the real person aside from their difference, as well as giving you some understanding of a huge aspect of that person’s life: their difference. By acknowledging the difference and learning and being aware, it would, as Sam said, “become part of your universe.” You would become so familiar with it, that it would no longer be something that could cause you to put a wall up of discomfort or misunderstanding. Sometimes, though, I feel like being familiar with differences can make you notice them more. For example, my grandfather was a quadriplegic. All my life, I grew up around things that mark the life of a person in a wheelchair: ramps, vans with wheelchair lifts, extra accommodations at restaurants, special tools and utensils, modifications to the house, etc. Because of this, I feel like I notice people in wheelchairs more. Or at least when I see them, I put more thought into the person rather than, “oh there’s a person in a wheelchair.” I also think of things that most people who aren’t exposed to wheel chairs might not think of, such as where is the person in a wheelchair supposed to park when someone else who is handicapped takes the spot with the wheelchair lift access area? I also had a really good friend in high school that was from Nigeria. I spent a lot of time asking her about her country, church, culture, and traditions. Because of this, every time I hear someone is from Nigeria, I take notice. I feel like I already know a part of them. I feel like at that point though, the differences aren’t the same as they used to be. Once you become familiar with people, the difference then becomes a similarity through shared experience and knowledge. When you go out and meet new people that might have the same difference, it’s like meeting someone who has the same major or played the same sport as you: you understand a part of each other already. At this point, the difference is still there but the fact that it’s “different” is no longer “part of our universe.” Mon, 17 Sep 2012 02:54:35 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/12/voices-from-the-classroom-162/#IDComment442125173 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/04/voices-from-the-classroom-160/#IDComment437650205 I think that Sam’s question about how people—Christians in particular--feel knowing that African Americans that call themselves Christians only came to know the religion through their ancestors slavery is an irrelevant question. I do agree that African American slaves may have first been exposed to Christianity during their slavery. Yet, they as people with individual rights, chose to accept the religion as their own. If their first exposure to reading was with their slave owner, would it be wrong of them to want to know what reading is? And if not, would it be wrong of them to learn to read, and practice reading, even though they only learned it because of their slave owner? It shouldn’t be any different with religion. These people found Christianity to be the Truth, and it gave them hope and a new life. The fact that their owners practiced the same religion shouldn’t matter. Now, dealing with the other half of the question…the fact that hundreds of thousands of people had to die, so that their descendants could go to heaven. Step away from religion for a minute. The revolutionary war was started by a bunch of rebels, trying to gain freedom for their country. Thousands of people had to die in this war just so we can live our lives of freedom today. The Civil war was fought over a disagreement on slavery. If not for the thousands of lives lost, the south may have seceded, slavery could still be practiced, and our country would not be how it is today. There are many examples all throughout history where people have had to lose their lives, so that others after them could have a better life. Should we not be happy about our freedom in the United States of America because people had to lose their lives for us to gain it? Obviously no one wants people to have to suffer or die for them to have a better life, but it happens all the time. There’s no reason we should be ashamed of or question our happiness in our freedom or religion because of their sacrifice. I believe his question to be irrelevant because when his question is looked at through a lens other than religion, it’s no longer a question. But because religion is a sensitive topic to many, all of the sudden the question becomes a sensitive and interesting one. People need to take a step back and look at the big picture. Mon, 10 Sep 2012 03:58:54 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/09/04/voices-from-the-classroom-160/#IDComment437650205