Atheist Councilmen Feels the Religious Heat

Asheville, North Carolina City Councilman Cecil Bothwell has some great ideas, and believes in great things. However, one of the things he does not believe in is God. Being an atheist is a big problem to some people in North Carolina. His opponents say it is a sin to be an atheist and makes him unworthy of serving in office. The North Carolina Constitution even states that being an atheist disqualifies officeholders "who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

However, the state's requirement that officeholders must believe in God is unenforceable because it violates the U.S. Constitution because of the supremacy clause. The Supreme Court affirmed that federal law prohibits states from requiring any kind of religious test to serve in office. This shows the power the federal government has over the state government.

Any person who has the correct qualifications should be allowed to serve in office, whether they believe in God or not. Even though Bothwell is permitted to stay in office, he will spend much of his time defending himself in court against his conservative, religious opponents. If his ideas and motives are good, his belief or non-belief in any ultimate being should not be relevant. Religion and politics should be kept separate, and the U.S. Constitution helped it stay that way in this case.

No Gays, No Group

The topic of gays and lesbians is a hot and controversial one. Another debate has begun about them at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law and it is being brought in front of the Supreme Court this upcoming Monday.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the law school violated the constitutional rights of a Christian group at the school by being denied recognition as an official campus organization because it excludes gays and lesbians. The college requires officers and voting members to share their religious beliefs, including that "Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of a marriage between a man and a woman." The article states, "The justices agreed to intervene in a case that pits anti-discrimination policies common college campuses against freedoms of religion and association".

I can see this case going either way. Discrimination is wrong, but the group is being denied recognition for their religious beliefs. Because I am so anti-discriminatory, pro- gay, and not so religious, I think it is right to not recognize the group. They are leaving people out because of something they can't even control and they think that's okay. I understand that everyone has their own beliefs but these beliefs are unfair, discriminatory, and the group does not deserve to be recognized.

30,000 More

Last week, Obama announced he was sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The plan is for the troops to be added by next summer and begin to be withdrew in July 2011. It sparked a huge response, some happy with his decision, some not. Mostly not. The Republicans accused Obama of "aiding the Taliban insurgency by setting a date to begin a withdraw" and the Democrats criticized Obama for an "expensive expansion of an unpopular conflict at a time of economic hardship at home". In addition, John McCain added, "'What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies'". However, our own Representative, Doris Matsui said, "'I am encouraged by Obama's clear commitment to bring our military involvement in Afghanistan to a conclusion'".

Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan brings up a good point. He argues that bringing more troops in would increase Karzai's dependence on the U.S. military and prolong the country's involvement in the war. This is true. The goal of the war is to destroy al-Qaida and to turn over government and security responsibilities to Afghans as quickly as possible. But if we have thousands of troops over there, they will become dependent on us and it will make it harder for us to end the war.

Over 850 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Although some, including the President, think it's necessary to bring in more troops, I don't think it should happen. Increasing the number of troops increases the time we will be over there, which I wish was no time at all.

Interracial Marriage Not Allowed in This Guy's Book

A Louisiana justice of the peace in New Orleans recently refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple. Keith Bardwell claims he did this out of concern for any children the couple might have. Bardwell is justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish. He says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last.

But wait, Bardwell claims he is not a racist. "'I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way. I have piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else'". So he marries 2 black people and lets them use his toilet, but he won't marry a black person and a white person? That seems racist to me.

He said that he asks every couple who calls seeking him to marry them if they are interracial. If they are, he does not marry them.

Imagine calling up a justice of the peace, you are white, you're partner is black, and the justice says, "No, i cannot marry you, because you are a mixed-race couple and all couples like that never last". I would be pretty upset. He is violating my rights and not treating every person equally. This situation is the equivalent to "I can't marry Jack and Sue because marriages between people named Jack and Sue never last long". It's ridiculous, discriminatory, and unfair.

Why are you Skipping School?... It's Confidential.

There has been a recent proposal to allow students in the San Juan Unified School District to be excused from school without parental consent for "confidential medical services". This has caused much controversy and debate. It is a fight between the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative nonprofit, and Planned Parenthood and National Center for Youth Law. They are fighting over the question of whether students in grades 7 to 12 can leave school for medical services such as abortions, getting birth control, treatment for sexual assault, and drug and mental health issues.

There are some people strongly against this idea. "'They are officially usurping parental authority. Children, who are teenagers, in most cases do not have the sufficient knowledge or wisdom to make decisions at times like these'' said Erline Applegate, a parent of a junior at El Camino High School. She makes a valid point, but so do her opponents. Rebecca Gudeman, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law says most children involve their parents in such issues, but "'It's the 25 percent we care about, in abusive households or in families that don't believe in mental health care'".

The current San Juan policy says : Students should not be absent from school without their parents/guardians' knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency.

The proposed policy says: Students in grades K-6 shall not be absent from school without their parents/guardians' knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency. Students in grades 7-12 shall not be absent from school without their parents/guardians' knowledge or consent except in cases of medical emergency or confidential medical appointment.

I don't think children in grades K-6 should be allowed to leave without parents consent except in a medical emergency. 4th grades should not and probably are not having abortions. These kids are too young to know if they can leave school or not. However, I do think this is a good law because there are a lot of families that would not accept their child or realize the importance of getting mental or drug abuse help. By passing this law, high schoolers could have a chance to make a medical decision they thought was best without their parents holding them back. But is it really confidential if you have to bring a note back to the school from the doctor? Or would they not have to? I think students should be allowed to leave school for medical emergencies and confidential appointments without the consent of their parents.

A One-Drug Death

When a person commits a really horrible crime, he or she is sometimes put to death. In most states, the three-drug method is used. The first drug knocks out an inmate, the second drug paralyzes him or her, and the third stops the heart. This process is extremely painful, especially if the first drug doesn't work. Ty Alper, associate director of the Death Penalty Clinic at UC Berkeley said, "'Parazlyzing inmates before executing them- so we can't tell whether they are suffering- is a barbaric practice'".

If you are on death row in Ohio, you are in luck, or as much as you can have on death row. Ohio has adopted a new method of execution, a one-drug injection. This method has never been tried on prisoners before. This single drug is an overdose of anesthesia, the same drug used to euthanize pets, sedate surgery patients, and been used in assisted suicides in Europe. This one drug method is intended to make executions more humane.

I think that it's good that people are attempting to make executions humane, but I don't think the death penalty is and never will be humane. Personally, I think life in prison or any other harsh punishment is worse then getting put to death. Getting killed is the easy way out, but having the spend 30 years in a small cell almost seems worse. It's also just not right to kill other people. Props to Ohio, but I think the death penalty should be abolished.

Good News for Drug Addicts With Needles

There are 1.1 million HIV cases in America. The number will grow if drug addicts continue to share needles because buying new ones is very expensive. There are many needle-exchange centers where addicts can turn in their used needles and get free ones in return. Although this endorses injecting drugs into you, it also greatly reduces the spreading of HIV, AIDS and other diseases.

A bill is now in Congress that would lift a ban of over 20 years on using federal money for needle-exchange programs. However, this bill would also ban federally financed exchanges from being within 1,000 feet of a school, park, library, college, video arcade, or any other place where children could be. This causes a problem because officials at exchanges around the country said there are very few, if any, places that could house a needle exchange under this rule. Raquel Algarin, executive director of the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center in New York said, "'We'd probably be doing syringe exchange in the middle of the East River, and any exchange on the West Side would be in the Hudson river'". In addition, Rebecca Haag, executive director of the AIDS Action Council, said, "'This 1,000 foot rule is simply instituting the ban in a different form'".

On the other side, Rep. Jack Kingston from Georgia said, "'Let's protect these kids. They don't need to be playing kickball in the playground and seeing people lined up for needle exchange'".

While I understand what Kingston is saying, I think this 1,000 foot rule is unfair and that it's great the federal government is finally going to fund the needle exchange program. This program greatly reduces the spreading of diseases and it's ridiculous to make these rules about the location of them. Drug addicts are part of our society and always will be, so we might as well control it and make it as safe as possible for others.