The United States consistently supports Christian ideals and does not have the same tolerance for other religions. Despite the “freedom of religion” and separation of church and state, Christian fundamentalist consistently create a sense of fear among Muslims. This would not be tolerated if it was the other way around. Is the government not fairly supported Islam and other religion in the United States. Is the United States doing nothing its way of supporting the Christian ideals? Or to do something would they be taking away freedom of speech? These are the limitations we are placed on within the United States. Among any religion there are going to be fundamentalists, just like Islam, Christians have them too. It is nothing new to the world, and if we better understood one another we might tolerate the other more fully. But as long as we remain ignorant of each other’s presence and beliefs, acts of terrorism and fear will always remain for both sides.

Americans more than any other culture in the world live in a bubble. We are separated by thousands of miles of ocean from any place of conflict in the world, and surround ourselves with people just like us. As a result, we are sheltered from any other kind of religion in the world. Americans are predominantly Christian and its various forms. We rarely encounter any of other form of religion and when we do, take little time to learn anything about it. Jihad and the death of Christians is nothing different from the same terrorist activities we take part in. What about things like Jesus camp, where children are trained in a militia type activities. If I was a Muslim living in the United States, I would be especially afraid of such things, and even more sp if I was a minority in such the United States. I would feel personally threatened and afraid if this is what I saw. If an Islamic group were to make this video about Christians it would be a public outcry for freedom of religion and terroristic messages, but since it is a Christian group, it is accepted in the United States.

This story opens up a whole new ground of possible cases. Is it even needed for a person to distinguish what gender they are? In this case it was meant to keep a man from being intruded on. But what if the actual male they had hired was gay? Wouldn’t a man feel significantly more at ease if lesbian women were watching him pee? After all, this is the basis of their argument. What if a gay man had taken the position and the people over him were to find out that he was gay? Should he be fired? In their case no. The job title said that they need “a male” for the position, not a “heterosexual male.” I find a number of problems with any title that has a specific trait needed to fulfill that position because in today’s day and age there are a growing number of in distinctions surrounding these such as this. And if the state a New Jersey did not intend to back up his right to be legally called a man, why would they issue him such documentation?

Aside from many of the feelings I have for anyone who have been discriminated against, I have serious problem with this story because it does not uphold things we hold true, that is a person’s identification. If he had a government issued identification that said he was a male, there are reasons for that. We have gender differences so that we are able to hold certain jobs and be given specific privileges and rights. This is not help true in this case. The distinction of gender to the state does not work in a manner that you can be your gender until you surgery comes into question. My next issue is this, if that is the case, shouldn’t he be allowed to be a female urine moderator? After all, the state is saying that he is a female because everyone is without doubt either male or female according to the state. I think this would cause a variety of new problems and series of unforeseen issues. How uncomfortable would women be if he was watching them pee into a plastic cup?

This is completely unfeasible, until it comes too costly to bring in oil, we destroy out environment or one another, we will be running on oil. It will take a tipping point for us to reach this but not one that will be started by the consumer. I will like many other Americans continue to have my opinions about what we should be doing with oil or for that matter what we are not doing, but at the end of the day I always have cheap gas to put in my car and can save myself the 20 minute walk in the morning and the afternoon because I know that my actions alone will not change anything so why inconvenience myself for a lost cause. This may be the view point of a cynic but it will always be true. Americans can cry about atrocities and everything we do, but at the end of the day we all like our lives and will keep it that way.

This article attempts to bring attention to the manner in which the oil industry dominates Washington which I believe to be true. The article cites the public opinion poll in support of this bill proposed by Obama to rid 4 Billion in government subsidies to the oil industry. The American tax payer likes the thought of this but as much as we all complain about the efforts that are put into bringing oil into America we all reap the benefits. If not for this, we would all be paying a much higher price for oil than we already are. Additionally, we would be facing a shortage of oil that we receive from many of the OPEC nations. This is the way Americans have always handled things, we don’t like to know where or how we get the products but we want them fast, readily available and at a cheap price. Yes I can be said to complain about our nation’s dependence on oil, but I always choose my words wisely. I don’t plan on hanging up the keys to my Honda any time soon to make the 2 mile walk to my job in the morning. Many of our fellow Americas want to complain but don’t want to make the action themselves.

This video is truly awing to me. The first assumption that is made is that all Muslims are terrorists, rather than some terrorists are Muslim. Note that I say some, in fact, in American history there have been more domestic Christian terrorists than there have been Muslim. Why aren’t all white men considered terrorists because of our founding fathers? Were they not terrorists? What about men like Ted Kaczynski or timothy McVeigh? I believe he was classified as a terrorist. However what do they think about us? As a nation we enter their countries, force our will on them for the benefit of oil. We start wars and enter into their diplomatic affairs, I find it completely absurd that we condone this but not some other forms of protest. I also found it comical how the one protestor was ignorant enough to say “It’s one nation under god, not Allah.” Yet Allah means God in Islam. My next argument is how is this allowed to go on? This is a clear form of harassment in a nation that is supposed to support the separation of church and state. Calling these people pedophiles, sexual molesters and other demeaning names is a clear form of harassment. Our nation tolerates religion as long it is consistent with Christian ideals. I want to note that I am not some flaming liberal, and in fact am a practicing catholic. I just believe that if these people are going to yell about their constitutional rights like they are in this video, than the separation of church and state should stand as well. The problem I have with people constantly protesting over their rights is such: People always pick and choose which items of the constitution, bill of rights, or other legal precedents they wish to uphold. I can only imagine what the backlash would be if Muslims protested outside an evangelical church in the United States. But again, we do not truly have a separation of church and state. We always want line items upheld as long as they are in that persons best interest. Additionally, like many religions, people pick and choose what aspects they want to argue about. Clearly these Christians miss the part where is says love your enemies and you neighbor.

And I think that this is a big way people think about white people, they see them as being an awkward group of people. My next thought is why there is always the black person that some people call white. For example, I have a friend we always call the whitest black person ever. Why is this? His skin tone is not any lighter than any other black person but he comes across as, well, white. He grew up in the suburbs (predominately white), he does not talk with the slang we associate black people and does not wear clothing that is generally associated with black people. Some of our friends even go as far as to consider him the whitest amongst us. I always find this ironic because white and black were always used to describe a race but I realized that it may be the least of things it describes and rather is a description for characteristics, attitude, and socioeconomic factors.

When first thinking about what makes someone “white” or “black” it is important to think about what characteristics go along with each of these descriptions. When I think of someone being very “white” I think of a few things. The first is the way they speak, if they talk with no slang, an awkward sense of humor, and just drawing attention to awkward parts of life I consider them to be talking white. The next thing I note is the way in which they dress. Shirt tucked in high around the belly button, and a general level of ‘corniness’ that is associated with the way they look. He also gives off a very ‘awkward’ vibe, for some reason I also associate this with someone I consider to be very white. But my question is why do some white people appear to be whiter than others? I went I evaluated why I felt like this guy was very white, it all went back to a lot of the emotions I felt. This guy was incredibly awkward. I felt weird watching this video, especially when he had to keep noting that he was wearing gym shorts underneath his pants.

If our perception of people we felt closes to and trusted changes, of course it is going to decrease our happiness level. Whether or not people who win the lottery will be happy is shaped by a number of social and economic factor. Is also has a great deal to do with what their lives were like prior to winning the lottery. I think success if fully able to be achieved if the person makes good changes in their lives. One of these changes might be to move. Getting out of an area you once lived to start a life where people do not know you might be better. But who honestly wants to do that? The only winners who would benefit from this are ones who did not like their lives before, maybe someone who lives in low income housing, or lives in a high crime area and wants to get their kids out. Regardless happiness by winning the lottery will come only if the individual is able to protect themselves from the hurt that could be associated with it.