Cults in the Courts

                 Dealing with cults (new religious movements) in courts has been an ongoing problem because courts are forced to consider these groups as religions and thus they are protected by the First Amendment. In the book Cults in America: a reference handbook, it is stated that "while Congress cannot prescribe laws against what one may believe, it may legislate against actions harmful to society" (132).
                 However these decisions are based on "socially accepted, traditional notions of religious practice" (Cults in America: a reference handbook, 132). If it is society that makes the rules then how are the decisions fair? On the other hand though, if the cult is harming others in pursuit of religion and they are convicted by the court that is helpful to society. But does this restrict people's First Amendment rights?
                   

No Japan-Ease

            With the recent earthquake and consequent tsunami in Japan, then with nuclear plants exploding there has been little rest in Japan. In a CNN article on Japan it may be that a reactor core is leaking its radioactive contents. This is very worrisome not only for the Japanese but for those who import their crops. If Japanese water and food have Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 (the radioactive elements) then everything else might too. Not only that but some of the Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 has reached Colorado and Oregon but "thus far -- 'are far below levels of concern'" (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/23/colorado.oregon.radiation/index.html).
            However I think this begs the question that, if Japan is such a small island and is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, why did they build nuclear plants? When dealing with highly radioactive material you can't take the conventional means of building a strong plant/storage unit and say "that's good enough" because something will eventually knock it down or damage it in some way. With radioactive elements good, probably isn't good enough.

New Religious Movements

                New religious movements are often called labeled cults. The media often portrays these groups in a negative light and/or publishes a story about a mass suicide. Perhaps the most famous mass suicide is the one led by Jim Jones of the People's Temple. Jones created a new "world" in the island of Guyana called Jonestown. When some members left they reported physical and mental abuse. With that, a Congressman named Lo Ryan went to Guyana and while he was leaving he and four others were shot down. After, Jones ordered the suicide.
              With Jones' charisma and his absolute power as the leader of the group, his disciples obeyed. He ordered this suicide because he was convinced American troops were coming for them because of the Congressman. 914 people were killed in the suicide. The members drank a liquid laced with cyanide but those who tried to escape were shot.
               If the media constantly portrays these religious groups negatively then that might push the decline of religion in America even faster. Really, I think the ratio between benign religious groups and fanatical ones is 2-1 because the only groups that garner mass media coverage are the fanatical religious groups. Would these fanatical groups scare people away from religion or good?


 

No fly zone

              Today in the news on the CNN channel the reporter was talking about how Qaddafi's compound was bombed. In one part of the building there are two circular holes which are speculated to be from some kind of missile. 

              America has already invaded the Libyan air space to  enforce a no fly zone. America and its allies invaded with the view that it was a strategic move protect the civilian population in Libya. Again the U.S. is taking things into their own hands in an international cause. However, in this case we don't know the far reaching consequences which could lead the U.S. to a prolonged stay in Libya or if resistance will surface from Libya or surrounding countries. 

              Invading Libya could almost be seen as a declaration of war because we have bombed military locations and the act of invading could be viewed the same way. Without knowing the consequences of our actions, this might prove to be another Iraq-like war. 

To Fight Terror With Terror

             If the U.S. has pledged itself, or at least quite a few of our presidents have sworn, to fight terrorism wherever it is then shouldn't we also focus on our home? There are few reports of home terrorism but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Not only that but to fight terrorism elsewhere the U.S. has used very brutal methods in return. Can't that be considered terrorism as well?
            Using probable cause as justification for incarcerating many people and some suspected terrorists the american government put them in Guantanamo Bay Prison. There they suffered various acts of torture by U.S. soldiers and guards. In a segment of a book I read by Noam Chomsky called Hopes and Prospects said that (I'm paraphrasing here) the torturers where supposed to find a connection between the suspected terrorists and a terrorist organization, and the less they came up with the more they needed to find that non-existent connection.
            In fact the government has tried to justify their use of torture with the Torture Memos which provide arguments for the use of torture. America has, even if not openly, committed war crimes and suppressed its own citizens with laws that restrict civil liberties such as the Patriot Act of 2006. If the United States commits itself to a war on terror ti should use different methods than those of the terrorists themselves because then what is America? Does the end justify the means?