Is Religion Influencing the Law?

When one reads about the case involving John and Cynthia Burke, one has to feel some sympathy for the couple, who came so close to adopting their first child, only to be thwarted by the controversy of religion.

In 1970, the Burkes, who had been a childless couple for 6 years, applied for the adoption of a baby boy from the Children’s Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange, New Jersey. The couple, being atheists, on the application form, left the space for religious affiliation blank. Due to this, their original application was denied, and only when the matter was brought to court was the decision overruled. The Burkes soon successfully adopted David, their new son.

The matter became a more debated issue, when the Burkes applied for a second adoption, this time for a baby girl. Normally, it would have been assumed that the application would have gone in the same way as the first. However, in this case, Superior Court Judge William Camarata denied their application, on grounds of a religious issue.

Judge Camarata’s decision was made on the basis that the Burkes lacked the belief of a Supreme Being. According to him, “the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit”, and her opinions should not be influenced or hindered by her atheist parents. Judge Camarata backed up his argument, by quoting the New Jersey constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.”

During the few weeks after the Superior Court’s decision, the Burkes have been told to return their “adopted” daughter to the New Jersey adoption agency. This decision has greatly riled the Burkes, who took the matter to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also supported the Burkes’ appeal.

This case raises an interesting question: Is religion playing too much a part in legislature and the justice system?

It has been seen before, that most of the time, when religion and religious opinions get involved in the law and the justice system, it often results in complicated and long, drawn-out court cases. For instance, take the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. In that situation, some of the laws that were being drafted were in support of one religion and against other beliefs.

Religion is a very vague concept, and it varies in different ways, from person to person. How religion is interpreted greatly determines how it is perceived. Due to its ambiguity, in its concepts and interpretation, religion and its principles cannot be easily defined or explained. Therefore, if laws regarding religion are drafted, it makes it very hard for the judiciary to set a definite boundary which is encompassed by this law. In other words, the law does not become a definite and concrete one, but instead is one whose restrictions and guidelines can be interpreted and manipulated differently.

In any court case, the judge will definitely have some bias when making a decision. However, in the recent past, especially in cases involving the religion debate, it seems as though religious inclinations and bias are becoming more influential when a judge is in the process of decision-making. In most cases, the judge is usually a Christian, who is usually unwilling to put aside his religious beliefs when making his decision. This very much undermines the equality and bipartisanism that the judicial system is supposed to have. Religious bias is a very strong bias, namely because the judge is usually a devout believer, and he finds it hard to go against his religious beliefs.

The judicial system is one of the few platforms in a country where every man should be on an equal playing field. However, with religious biases having their say in the judicial process, some groups of people are being put at an advantage over others. How much of an impact this will have on the judicial system in the future only remains to be seen.

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html

ERP - 5(a)

5a) Write about a time when you taught someone a skill. Describe what you gained in the exchange, and how that affected your relationship with them.

Until about last year, I had been able to draw very few similarities between my brother and myself. Ever since he was 4 years old, his likes and dislikes were very different from mine. He liked red, I liked black. We enjoyed different sports. There was a ‘rivalry’ in almost everything we did. This made our relationship slightly strained, though still as strong as any other brother-to-brother relationship. However, there was also a bridge between us that we never managed to cross. It made me sometimes think, during my meaner moods, that the two of us were not related at all. I, as the elder sibling by two years, naturally tried to find things that we had in common. Still, I kept turning up blanks. Then, one day, an opening emerged.

I was sitting on my bed, plucking my guitar strings and playing random tunes that came to my head. I was so engrossed in what I was doing, that I did not realise that my brother had been standing at the doorway for about 5 minutes. I continued playing, indifferent to the world around me. Then, my brother gave a slight cough.

The sound brought me back to reality. I turned my head and looked at him. His eyes were occasionally glancing at the direction of my guitar. I asked him, in a slightly exasperated tone, what the matter was. I had originally thought that my mother was asking me to run an errand for her. I was hoping it was not. What my brother then said completely took me by surprise.

He pointed at my guitar and asked, “Could I have a go?”

The question took me aback so much, I sat there with my mouth slightly open, and did not reply. When he asked me again, I became slightly annoyed. For a while, I considered not letting him try. After all, I had been playing, and I had no intention of stopping. However, other emotions repressed my selfishness, and a rush of excitement ran through me. There finally seemed to be a way to connect with him, find something in common between the two of us. I did not waste the opportunity.

I wholeheartedly agreed, and helped him hold the guitar properly, and taught him how to play a few chords. As he played each new chord, I saw a slight grin on his face, and I sensed the fascination in him. Finally, there was something that we both had an interest in, something we shared in common. I could hardly suppress my joy, at having finally connected with my brother, who had always been slightly distant from me. I could feel the bilateral brotherly affection flowing through the bond between us, and the closer relationship brought about in me great satisfaction. The river between us had been crossed, and soon enough, both of us became closer to each other than anyone else. My brother would become my best friend in the world.

We were definitely related.  (500 words)

The Evilution of Goodness

In my opinion, there are mainly two reasons why human beings are willing to do good to others. 

Firstly, (and this is the politically correct answer) humans do good others because they believe that it is the right thing to do, and therefore, are willing to do it. For example, if somebody sees someone else struggling to do something - let's say, do their homework- then that person will help the one in need because, he or she knows that it would be the right thing to do. This sense of right and wrong is driven by our morals and conscience.

On the other hand, some people would do good to others if they themselves can reap some benefits from doing so. This is the case for the more selfish people, who rarely help others unless their actions helps themselves as well. For example, someone who helps an old lady cross the road might be doing so because they expect a reward from the old lady, in return for their "good deed".

...und the commentary...

Deaf to Danger

People say that music is a way to reduce stress levels, especially after a long day at work. Although undoubtedly true, music – especially in the right circumstances – can cause the listener to put himself in danger. The same can be said for text-messaging, as those who text while walking might be obstructing other passers-by. Listening to music makes one unaware of his or her surroundings. This can lead to the listener putting himself at risk of injury, and also putting other passers-by at danger.

By listening to music, the chance of someone falling victim to an accident, and consequently injury, is increased. When one is walking or crossing the road, listening to music reduces his or her reaction time by 35 per cent, according to a study by the RAC Foundation in Britain. Hence this makes him more oblivious to the surroundings. Devices such as noise-cancelling earphones can silence ambient noise by nearly 100 per cent, rendering the listener ‘deaf’ to his surroundings. Thus, a person might not realise that there is a potential danger near him or in his path, and he is simply walking blindly – or rather, deafly – into the danger awaiting him.

Indeed, doctors have warned of the danger people face due to distractions such as listening to music or text-messaging. This is clearly reflected in a study conducted by the Sunday Times, where reporters deliberately bumped into, or rode a bicycle towards, 60 people who were either text-messaging or listening to music. Out of the 30 who were listening to music, 12 did not hear the bicycle bell and thus did not move away. 24 of the 30 had their music volume above 50 per cent. This shows that people are quite indifferent to their surroundings, and are alright with potentially putting themselves at risk, for their own pleasure’s sake.

People might say that listening to music is a way for them to reduce their stress levels. Also it is the duty of the driver, the bicycle rider, or the other pedestrians, to move away from them instead of the listeners themselves moving. They are not willing to sacrifice their pleasure and relaxation, through listening to music, or texting. What they fail to realise is that others are also put at risk, due to the careless and ignorant acts of those who are listening to music, or text-messaging. People who are using their cell phones while driving put themselves, and pedestrians at risk. They will become distracted, and their alertness levels decrease. The number of summonses issued for use of cell phones while driving, according to Traffic Police figures, has increased from 2,505 in 2007 to 2,583 in 2008. This shows that, slowly, more people are potentially endangering themselves and others while they are on the road. These irresponsible actions, as well as the indifferent attitude of music listeners and cell phone users, are the reason why this issue has been brought forward.

Danger can come from the most unlikely of sources, and listening to music is indeed one of them. Listening to music, like text-messaging, is a danger, not only to the listener, but also to others around him. Their indifferent attitude is the main reason why the number of incidents related to this problem has not decreased. People are unwilling to sacrifice their pleasure, for others’ safety.  
 

The 100-summary...

Deaf to the world

The article “Deaf to the World” is mainly about the problem, regarding people who are so immersed in listening to music or text-messaging, that they completely ignore their surroundings.  The young are the majority of those who are guilty of committing this act of ignorance. Although listening to music is a source of relaxation to the listener, it is also a danger - not only for others on the road, but also the listener, who is putting himself at risk of getting injured, or maybe worse. Their reaction time to their surroundings is reduced, and this further increases the danger.  
 

Introduction

In 2007, 7.6 million people around the world died of cancer. One of these people was my uncle, who had been fighting against the disease for nearly a year. His death was a very emotional event for my whole family, and we all had the same question. Wasn't there any way doctors could have saved him from this terrible fate. When I read up on stem cell research, and realised that if it had been at a more advanced stage, my uncle could still have been with us today.

My first Commentary - Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research is a topic which has been, and still is, hotly debated around the world. It has proved to be very controversial in the eyes of some. Yet for others, it is a necessary step towards finding a cure for many diseases which have caused much suffering to many people, including Parkinson's disease and cancer. Embryonic stem cell research requires the extraction of an egg from a female donor. Although this, in the eyes of some people, is equivalent to 'killing' the embryo, it is a necessary evil, and it is the best way forward to cure many fatal diseases.

Stem cell research has not been perfected yet. However, when an embryonic stem cell is implanted into the body, it does not only fix a problem, it also replaces cells in the body which also have the same problem. According to Elizabeth Cohen, a CNN medical correspondent, this makes stem cells more valuable than ordinary drugs. Thus scientists have been increasing their efforts to perfect the implantation of stem cells, instead of developing the medicines used currently. Embryonic stem cell research should be further researched on and improved, so that cures for diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer's can be found.

However, some readers (including you) might be thinking that the fact that an embryo is being 'killed' is more pertinent than the development of scientific and medicinal technologies. You might say that embryonic stem cell research goes against the very ethics of life. However, I believe strongly against this opinion. The embryo that is being so-called 'killed' is actually being used to potentially save another person's life. Another person is being saved from diseases like cancer. It is not just a case of tit-for-tat. The social, economic and personal costs that are faced if embryonic stem cell is not used, are far greater than the cost of killing one embryo.

Another viewpoint is that there are other alternatives to using embryonic stem cells to treat diseases. Other methods, such as using adult stem cells, have been put forward. Parties which support using adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells do indeed have a point. It has been shown that adult stem cells produce better results than embryonic stem cells. However, embryonic stem cells help cure more diseases than adult stem cells. Also, advances in embryonic stem cell research will come with more time, and breakthroughs in it cannot be predicted. Thus, embryonic stem cells should be promoted instead of adult stem cells.

Although embryonic stem cell research is not as easy to develop as adult stem cell research, the potential benefits that can be obtained through the development of embryonic stem cells far outweigh the disadvantages. Many more diseases can be cured through embryonic stem cell usage. Sacrifices will have to be made, for the greater good of mankind. Maybe pro-life supporters should consider that while they intend that one embryo not be 'killed', they agree to let many other people, who suffer from terminal diseases, lose their lives.