Medically Legal

The day in class in which Robin asked us to relocate around the room according to our religious beliefs vs. science, I sat towards the back right.  The back right signified a scientific belief and little religious standings.  I am a very science oriented person which is why I am majoring in a science specific field, but I also believe that there is something out there, such as god, that helped the creation of the universe.  In my opinion, science explains a lot about how everything was created but science alone did not do all the work which is where I feel God, or a higher power, fits in.  In addition to believing in a higher authority, I also strongly believe in Karma which is associated with religious beliefs and faith.  Thinking about where I fit in, I decided to further look upon the area of legalization of marijuana.  Not only is this controversial regarding religion, but science as well. 

In 1972, the US Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act because they considered it to have "no accepted medical use." Since then, 16 of 50 US states and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana.  Proponents of medical marijuana argue that it can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. They cite dozens of peer-reviewed studies, prominent medical organizations, major government reports, and the use of marijuana as medicine throughout world history.  Opponents of medical marijuana argue that it is too dangerous to use, lacks FDA-approval, and that various legal drugs make marijuana use unnecessary. They say marijuana is addictive, leads to harder drug use, interferes with fertility, impairs driving ability, and injures the lungs, immune system, and brain. They say that medical marijuana is a front for drug legalization and recreational use.

Religion plays a large role in the legalization process.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says the government cannot make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Many people use marijuana as a religious sacrament, and forcing them not to use marijuana clearly prohibits the free exercise of their religion. In order to comply with the First Amendment, our laws should allow for the religious use of marijuana.  However, American courts have generally rejected religious use as a defense to prosecution for marijuana possession.   Many claim that,even if the drug is shown to be harmful, isn't it the right of every person to choose what harms him or her? Marijuana use is generally thought of as a "victimless crime", in that only the user is being harmed. You can't legislate morality when people disagree about what's considered "moral".  In the religious standpoint, there are strong arguments for both sides of the issue. 

From a science standpoint, there are also two distinct sides of the issue regarding the legalization of marijuana.  It has been said that Marijuana’s legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source – especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States.  On the other hand, It is asserted that the marijuana controversy is primarily a political, rather than a scientific, debate. It is a struggle to establish moral hegemony. Stances toward marijuana use and legalization are largely a manifestation of prior basic underlying ideological commitments. Scientific truth or falsity seem to have little or no impact on the positions taken--although both sides will crave scientific findings and in fact will actually believe them--and have been preselected to verify a position already taken.

From my standpoint, I believe that medical marijuana should be legalized due to its use as a bio-fuel and its effects on people suffering from severe pain.  I feel as though by legalizing marijuana we need to put forth extensive rules and regulations so that it does not leak into mainstream society and cause a social confliction.  Many religions such as the Amsterdam Cannabis Ministry have been established tying together religion and a science to form a way to show people that a natural herb from the earth can help patients in hospitals and our economy at the same time in moderation.

Profanity, Goddamnit!

Forgive me for font size and timing, something is messed up with my blog :(

F*CK!!!!!!!

To many, seeing or hearing this word can be shocking and offensive. Others find "profane" words to be totally acceptable and appropriate for everyday use. I believe that a person's stance on swearing stems from a number of factors.

I personally grew up in a house where swear words were NEVER uttered. N-E-V-E-R. In fact, I remember the day I first heard the F-word, and a friend of mine took turns saying it back and forth in my basement, saying "oh that can't be a swear word!! it sounds so silly!! F**K!!!". Needless to say, I learned somehow that it was, in fact, a profane word, and did not repeat it too many more times.

On the spectrum of cuss words, they exist in varying levels of offensiveness and severity, and I would argue that many people include at least a few in their everyday vernacular. "God" is considered by many to be an inappropriate word to use in certain situations, but many many people continue to use it, off handedly. But there are some words that simply shock your ears when you hear them in certain settings! They leave you reeling and distract you from what is being said. But who decides which words are the most severe?? Certainly meaning partially determines this, but what about examples of lesser severe words that mean the same thing: "shit" and "poop" and "feces" mean the same thing, yet one is widely shunned and one is part of the title of a childrens book (Everybody Poops!).

Religion can be one authority that determines appropriate vocabulary. Laws or policies can determine appropriateness too. But I believe personal preference and exposure to the words truly determines what words a person will use. Like me, I grew up never using swear words, yet now I use them quite often and freely. Sometimes I believe they simply describe my feelings better than non-cuss words. But I know that it was a gradual slope for me to begin using these words. After hearing them from friends and in media, I grew desensitized to them, and found them quite descriptive or funny. Thus, I converted, and now I swear like a sailor.

Why I don't care..

Everyone has the right to their opinions. Everyone, as a citizen of the United States of America, has a right to exercising the first amendment stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (Constitution of the United States of America). So here is my opinion: I DON'T CARE!! So many people get so wrapped up in their own opinions that they shut down to others opinions. They believe, in their minds, that it's either their way or the highway. When I see bulletins for Pro-Life, I nod my head and say "OK". When I see people walking into an abortion clinic, I nod my head and say "OK". When people start to profess their opinions on me, I continue to nod my head thinking "OK". If I were to open my mouth and protest their opinions, nothing good would come of it. We would only begin to debate until one of us has a sense of dominance on the other with a sense of pride in our minds. When in reality, both people usually get a sense of bitterness towards the other. All for what?? To prove that you feel strongly about something that the other person contest? Who cares??? Why can't we just respect all people for being people. You are living your life. You might know someone who has been raped and is thinking about an abortion. You do not know what it is like being in their shoes. You might be an atheist who is in a life or death situation. You might has supported the Occupy Wall Street protests this past fall. If you God is probably sounding pretty good to you about then. But now you're a hypocrite for preaching a life of nothing to others. So keep your opinions to yourself. Keep your mouth shut but keep your heart strong. The is plenty of room for peace in this world.

To Drink or Not to Drink?

Our professor's request to sit in designated areas of the room slightly intimidated me. I anxiously made my way up to the front of the room.  I am a Christian and I strive to live a Christ-like life to demonstrate God’s love for the world. That being said, I believe living a sin free life is the ultimate goal. Is it achievable? Not at all, there is a reason Jesus came to the world to die, so that we could be forgiven from our sin, yet still strive to be holy. I have my morals and I get them from the Bible, but others may have different morals which could be based off of science, society, or maybe just feeling. In this blog I’m going to tackle to issue of alcohol through a Christian scope.

Once young adults exit high school and enter college it seems like life is just beginning. Living by yourself without parents and finally… finally you can drink whenever you want! Even if you’re under 21! Going into my freshmen year of college I had never been drunk. I was on a sports team at my college and the other girls quickly took advantage of the fact that I was an alcohol virgin. Long story short, I drank to get drunk a few times last year and I learned a very interesting lesson. NOTHING ever good came from it. My definition of good probably differs from other non-religious views of good. But I was not acting in such a way that was reflecting my faith.  I was raised that being drunk was wrong but I had to dabble my feet in it to see just what it was like. I was convicted that what I was doing was wrong and that it had lead me astray from my walk with God.(Proverbs 20:1)  Several students sitting in that auditorium will probably find absolutely nothing wrong with drinking to be drunk. College students in general want to have a good laugh and be a little wild, it’s just how they have fun. I won't lie, I had some fun. I enjoyed it, but It wasn't helping me be a better Christian. I quickly learned my actions when drunk were un-Christ like and I should be reflecting Christ with my life. The two contradicted themselves and I made the decision to not drink to get drunk.  I will wait until I’m 21 to enjoy an alcoholic beverage. Even still I will not drink to get smashed.(Ephesians 5:18) I understand most people in our class do not have the same biblical perspective that I do and will find absolute no reason for this. I know I sound crazy to a lot of you. Drunkenness, in turn, causes sinful actions and that are not God honoring and I cannot put myself in that position. Do not get me wrong I will enjoy an alcoholic drink, but not to the point of being drunk. I am NOT against drinking. I’m just looking at the purpose of it and how people use alcohol.

My religious aspect encourages me to not be drunk because it is not God honoring. Society is telling me it is normal and entertaining. These are aspects that will always be in conflict in the world. 

Stem Cells

When i first looked at this assignment i didn't really know how i was going to go about it. I decided to first focus on my spot in our class when we did the faith/ science exercise I sat towards the back left in the "all around questionable" area, meaning that I question both religious and science and don't put unquestioned faith in either. I like to think of myself as open minded. I am a spiritual person and believe in some form of god, and higher meaning but i prefer to not isolate myself to just the judo-christian belief system and instead try to accept all religions/ types of spirituality as a different path to the same area, happiness and understanding. I also do not try to deny the existence of scientific facts but i do acknowledge that in the past the scientific community has been proved wrong on many issues from a flat earth to what causes illness. However i do like to give credit to science for the countless ways in which it has improved our lives, often in the face of opposition from organized religion.

This analyses of my own personal views led me to examine issues which where important to me and had some inherent issue between how they were viewed in the scientific community and how they were viewed in organized religion, especially from the judo-christian perspective. A debate that I had back in 8th grade in my catholic middle school involving stem cell research came to mind. My mom being a doctor was a big supporter of stem cell research because she said it could perform medical miracles if it was developed to its full potential. However, in my religion class it was argued that stem cell research was a violation of life and that any use of the human embryo for scientific research should be forbidden. I didn't know where to stand at first, they both seemed reasonable and they both demonized the other side.

It wasn't until later that year when i made up my mind for where i stood. My best friend Mike's dad had been diagnosed with cancer almost a year ago, at first it appeared contained but later had a resurgence and towards the end of the year he was awaiting death, the doctors only gave him a few weeks to live. He had applied for a experimental stem cell treatment but was denied, as were all that applied, due to a change in government policy towards stem cell research which no doubt had a great deal to do with the religious outrage which linked stem cell research to abortion and disrespect for life. Before we entered high school mikes dad had died, i was heavily influenced by this event and by my moms scientific claim that stem cells could work wonders in the medical world. At that moment i became a staunch supporter of stem cell research and also became more aligned with the science perspective. But now that i have mature in my perspectives i realize why this issue is such a stumbling block. It is not an issue of the facts, or even of the possible benefits of stem cell research but instead, a moral debate. And the only way to settle this debate is by considering both sides and applying NOMA theory to it, realizing that science deals with the natural world and natural problems and that religion is in the domain of moral problems.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment has always been an incredible controversial issue when it comes to our society and especially among certain religious groups like Christianity. The Christian opinion over capital punishment is very controversial because it changes from domination to domination and from church to church. Personally I was raised in the Evangelical Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and they believe that the capital punishment is alright before God. This “Christian opinion” on capital punishment really does influence me because my religious beliefs have definitely shaped my subjective position on controversial issues such as capital punishment. Because I have a strong Lutheran faith when it concerns the individual practices of my church, I do feel justified in supporting the death penalty

The reason why I personally feel justified before God when it comes to capital punishment is because in the book Leviticus God specifically lists people like adulterous, prostitutes, and murders as people who deserve death. There are also other numerous passages in the Bible that talk about the justification of killing those who break some of God’s commandments like murder. Of course I am not saying that we should use capital punishment every time someone breaks the Lord commandments, (we all break the Lord’s commandments), but in certain circumstances I do believe that the death penalty is appropriate. Why should you be able to keep your life when you took someone else without justification? We could talk about when it is justified to kill someone but that is a different discussion for a different time.

Of course religious reasons are probably not the only reason why I have been influenced in my supporting of the death penalty. As people we are tremendously influenced by our environment and the environment I was raised where the death penalty was viewed as a justified punishment. My parents are active supporters in capital punishment and I am sure that their influence has contributed to my belief in the death penalty. It is hard not to believe in the appropriateness of capital punishment when you grow up with a father that mutters “I hope they fry” whenever a person comes on the news that have been convicted of killing a child or other people.

Now of course not everyone will take my opinion on capital punishment because people have their own subjective positions that have been influenced by their own personal and religious beliefs. There are many people, for example, who believe that capital punishment is not acceptable in our society. They believe that capital punishment is a cruel and unusual punishment. Many people also believe that capital punishment should be banned because we as people do not have the right to take one’s life away. Many people who are raised in an environment where their guardians and role models are against the death penalty would probably be influenced in taking these positions. For example in places like Britain where the death penalty doesn’t even exist, most people would view it as barbaric. Christians especially feel that they can justify the anti-death penalty movement through the Bible and Jesus’ teaching of forgiveness. Many Christians have the position that God gave life so he is the only one who should be able to take it away, which is a totally understandable position and interpretation of the Bible. People especially who have had loved ones executed will also have different opinions about the death penalty than those who have lost people who were victims in a crime.

Just to sum all up I would like to say yes I believe in the death penalty because of religious and environmental influences but these are my own personal beliefs. I believe that people who kill others in certain circumstances do not deserve life. On the other hand, people definitely have different beliefs than those of mine about the death penalty because of their environment and religious beliefs. Their beliefs could also be absolutely right. It is all the matter of opinion.

Playing the devil's advocate

I had a really hard time when thinking about this assignment and I don't think I really understood it at first. I'm a very opinionated person and that's putting it lightly! I wasn't sure what to write about because I kind of sat exactly in the middle. I believe in science, but I don't think that it can explain away everything. I also believe in karma so that if you do good, good will eventually happen to you and vice versa. Clearly, science cannot, or has not yet proven everything. The more that I thought about it, the more I realized that I was just as likely to be at odds people on either side of the spectrum. I thought about a specific claim that I get most argumentative about and I ended up thinking about abortion, yes how cliche. I thought about how abortion is truly the biggest conflict between science and faith right now. I thought about the subject position that I most frequently end up arguing against and it ends up being those people being pro-life.

First, I want to talk about why and how abortion seems to be incapable of finding a "settlement" between science and faith. Unfortunately, abortion is one of those issues where there, almost literally, is no way to find a middle ground. There are two sides to this, which are either abortion continues to be legalized or abortion becomes illegal. The only option for middle ground seems to be the way in which abortion is regulated, but we don't seem to be getting anywhere with it. It seems that our biggest problem is that people are taking their individual beliefs and applying them to the greater population, regardless of whether or not it may be. It seems to be that no one can figure out a good way to make a decision about this topic because it affects people's personal lives and their beliefs directly and people generally don't like that on either side. It seems that the only way for us to come to a settlement about this topic is for us to figure out a way to either do what the greater population wants or to be able to find a middle ground that is acceptable to both parties.

Second, I wanted to talk about the inherent conflict within this topic. Abortion is clearly something that resulted from science. That being the case, science has a very real stake in abortion. On the other side of this topic, people of faith believe that a fetus is product of God and is a child from inception. Therefore, abortion is murder. Science, on the other hand, believes that abortion is an advancement that can help society and think it is offensive to consider it murder. The action that is being done is inherently full of conflict, even if you don't take into account the two opposing view points that are arguing about it.

Finally, I just wanted to talk about how pro-life people could see things the way that they do with such unwavering certainty. I thought about it because to me the answer to this problem seems simple; keep abortion legal. It seems so simple to me because it is not as if abortion being legal means that you have to have one, but it give women the option. It seems so simple to me because this way it's not forcing anything on anyone. The more that I thought about it the more I began to understand why those who oppose abortion feel the way they do. While I might think that allowing those who would like to/or have to have an abortion to do that is not forcing anything on anyone, it is in the eyes of those who are pro-life. They view the allowing of abortion to be just as invasive in their lives, as people who are pro-choice view making abortion illegal see that as invasive. This is why there isn't an settlement available for this topic.

It seems as though abortion is a topic that puts science and faith clearly at odds. I don't believe that they have to be, but, unfortunately, they will be until be can find a way to separate the science and the faith from this argument and look at it from an objective point of view. Unless, people can see that their social constructions cause their positions when it comes to this, I don't think that will ever happen.