"Lunch Talks" with Matt & Brendon

The Christian faith is often considered controversial for its doctrines and their political applications. To supplement that, the Christian faith is very divided between its many denominations, which each describe its own set of beliefs. These multiple sets of beliefs, as a whole religion, encompass nearly every viewpoint available, which leads to its dispute: how can one faith have so many beliefs? Catholicism Derived from millennia of tradition, the Catholic Church has a long history based on fundamentals dotted with tribulations. Its history begins with the early Christian community following the teachings and fulfilled prophecies of Christ himself. Since then, the church has assumed very powerful positions sprinkled with evil and corruption, but equally love and compassion. Emperor Constantine’s decision to expand Christianity to the Roman Empire around A.D. 300 (Matthews, “Constantine I…”) catalyzed the Catholic Empowerment, which made the Pope one of the highest political officials in the world. He has held this position with much influence until the 1800s when political powers began to be reserved for national officials instead of religious sovereigns. This power, though thought to offer a conduit to worldwide evangelization, has corrupted the church in many instances (Miller, “Power Struggles of…”). Such escapades as the Crusades, the Inquisition, tithing, and indulgences turned the Pope into a sort of political authoritarian. The Church’s excuse for these was the name of God and His desire to convert the entire world to Catholicism—I believe such oppression is a disgrace to Christ’s ministry. But, learning from that, the Church’s recent popes have grown its mission into one that is based on love and compassion for all. This liberalized mission of the church has attracted socially conscious millennials as well as formerly non-believing atheists (Fradd, “15 Surprising Things…”). Beginning with Pope John Paul II’s call for social justice and continuing with radical changes under Pope Francis, Catholics all around the world are facing a new, progressive church that might just bring the Christian world together. Episcopalianism My personal faith-walk has left me with the Episcopal Church, which was either amazing luck or extraordinary grace from God. I was baptized into the Episcopal faith on the day of the Epiphany, just a few months after I was born. In the Episcopal Church, Confirmation isn’t solely reserved for young adulthood so I received it when I was only twelve. Despite this (and regretfully), I never really understood what my faith professed until my senior year of high school. Regardless, I was lucky to have it happen to me with the Episcopal Church because it almost exactly matches my political stance on a variety of issues. Both it and I deductively apply a simple set of fundamental beliefs to all political matters. For example, we believe in protecting and nurturing the rights and dignity of every human being on earth. This basic belief can apply to political positions such as abortion, gay marriage, and poverty. The Episcopal Church stands for the rights of the unborn child as well as the rights of the pregnant woman. The choice side of our pro-choice stance is to choose to prevent a conception—and thus the need for abortion—with contraceptives, birth control, and simple family planning. We say that the question is not “Is abortion ok?” but rather “How do we make abortion unnecessary?” The abortion process is permitted “in cases of rape or incest, cases in which a mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or cases involving fetal abnormalities,” but not “as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection or any reason of mere convenience,” (Pew Research, “Religious Groups’ Official…”). We profess a blending of beliefs, because we understand one-sidedness never resolves a problem. Gay marriage and homosexuality is fully permitted in the Episcopal Church—we even have the first and only openly gay cleric of any Christian denomination. We see homosexuals as children of God, just as every other human being on the face of this earth. Poverty is also addressed as something we must counteract with all that we can do, both socially and politically. Rights Now, how do these standpoints apply to civil and social rights? Firstly, we must address their political relevance. I strongly believe that religion and its ideologies should stay out of politics. We assume a separation of church and state to avoid such dictatorships as the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East or the Catholic Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages. Corruption can run rampant in such dictatorial states due to a single ruler’s “infallibility” (Brom, “Papal Infallibility.”). His—and sparsely her—ideas and opinions can progress to unchallenged dogmas. The political application of such corruption can be detrimental, leading an entire nation on ideology, not democratic common sense. Despite this, I believe government officials should have some kind of moral basis on which to make decisions… The unprecedented precedent of the Supreme Court case “Citizens United”, which allowed big money into politics, is one of the greatest atrocities of the modern age. Huge corporations—I mean people—have assumed the role of the pig “Napoleon” of Orwell’s Animal Farm being “more equal than others.” (Now I should preface this assertion with a stance on the economy: I do not condemn big business, but I do not condone their money becoming a conduit to extreme political power. The Supreme Court case was niche to the appellant’s situation, not generally applicable to big money donors.) This “free speech” (“Citizens United…”), though, has corrupted politicians and businessmen alike. This is the basis on which I emphasize that morals, possibly derived from religion, must be utilized in the course of politics. In not so dissimilar of a way should politicians embody the Episcopal Church by applying a simple and structured set of fundamental beliefs to issues pertaining to our republic (note: I am not claiming the Episcopal Church to be perfect or infallible, just appropriate in this sense). This action of implementing religious bases is not a usurpation of the political stage. The fine line between implementation and usurpation falls at passion. Passion Passion for one’s religion, though not always a bad thing, can spur bickering and chaos; whereas passion for one’s religious bases can actually achieve the desirable and formidable goals of civil and social rights. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., did not fight for African American rights because he was Baptist, he used his Baptist beliefs to recognize that “Negroes” were and are equal, human beings. He did not say that Jesus Christ fought for Civil Rights, he understood that Jesus Christ fought for love of fellow man, which in King’s day included African Americans. This, I believe, is how we can unite the world’s peacemakers, by each implementing his or her own set of beliefs to come to a unanimous solution. Regardless of race, ethnicity, stature, sex, religion, sexuality, or ideology, the solution is in coalescing as one human species to fight injustice and oppression. As King said himself from Birmingham City Jail, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Works Cited “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Jan 26, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205>. Brom, Bishop Robert H. “Papal Infallibility.” Catholic.com. 10 Aug. 2004. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. <http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility>. Fradd, Matt. “15 Surprising Things Atheists Are Saying about Pope Francis.” Matt Fradd RSS. 2016. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://mattfradd.com/15-things-atheists-are-saying-about-pope-francis/>. Matthews, J.F. “Constantine I | Roman Emperor.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 12 May 2015. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor>. Miller, Jessica Elam. “Power Struggles of the Holy Roman Empire: Popes vs. Emperors.” Study.com. 2016. Web. 26 Jan. 2016. <http://study.com/academy/lesson/power-struggles-of-the-holy-roman-empire-popes-vs-emperors.html>. Pew Research Center. “Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Abortion.” Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2016. <http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/>. https://ia601502.us.archive.org/30/items/UniversalCivilAndSocialRights/Universal%20Civil%20and%20Social%20Rights.mp3

Brendon and Matt went on a once in a lifetime sailing trip to the Bahamas! Join them and their colleagues as they experience amazingness in the flesh, while slipping in a few philosophical discussions here or there! iTunes link here. YouTube channel here. Social media here. Business contact: lunchtalksphilosophy@gmail.com PODCAST AUDIO: https://ia601508.us.archive.org/3/items/Ep203Part2Audio/Ep%20203%20Part%202%20-%20Audio.mp3

Brendon and Matt went on a once in a lifetime sailing trip to the Bahamas! Join them and their colleagues as they experience amazingness in the flesh, while slipping in a few philosophical discussions here or there! iTunes link here. YouTube channel here. Social media here. Business contact: lunchtalksphilosophy@gmail.com PODCAST AUDIO: https://ia601500.us.archive.org/13/items/Ep203Part1Audio/Ep%20203%20Part%201%20-%20Audio.mp3

Welcome back for Season 2!!! Brendon is leaving for a mission trip to Klagetoh, Arizona—a trip that Matt made over last Thanksgiving. We interview Brendon to see what all is to come! iTunes is linked here. YouTube channel is linked here. Social Media is linked here. Business Contact: lunchtalksphilosophy@gmail.com PODCAST AUDIO: https://ia601503.us.archive.org/30/items/Ep202Part3Audio/Ep%20202%20Part%203%20-%20Audio.mp3

Welcome back for Season 2!!! Brendon is leaving for a mission trip to Klagetoh, Arizona—a trip that Matt made over last Thanksgiving. We interview Brendon to see what all is to come! iTunes is linked here. YouTube channel is linked here. Social Media is linked here. Business Contact: lunchtalksphilosophy@gmail.com https://ia601509.us.archive.org/27/items/Ep202Part2Audio/Ep%20202%20Part%202%20-%20Audio.mp3

He’s back!! Join Brendon and Matt for a long sit-down and interview about his Klagetoh trip. The Klagetoh Facebook page (and all the pictures) is linked here: https://www.facebook.com/Klagetoh-Mission-Trip-SSC-1409855165935351/ iTunes is linked here. YouTube channel is linked here. Social Media is linked here. Business Contact: lunchtalksphilosophy@gmail.com PODCAST AUDIO: https://ia601501.us.archive.org/21/items/Ep202Part1Audio/Ep%20202%20Part%201%20-%20Audio.mp3

Welcome back for Season 2!!! Brendon is leaving for a mission trip to Klagetoh, Arizona—a trip that Matt made over last Thanksgiving. We interview Brendon to see what all is to come! iTunes is linked here. YouTube channel is linked here. Social Media is linked here. Business Contact: lunchtalksphilosophy@gmail.com PODCAST AUDIO: https://ia801501.us.archive.org/0/items/LT201Audio_201605/LT201%20-%20Audio.mp3

We had so many quotes last time that to condense them all down (like we said, we have a lot!) was quite a task, so here are some more of our favorite inspirational and philosophical quotes: Matt’s… 1. “Your focus determines your reality. – Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars 1: The Phantom Menace 2. “So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause.” – Padme Amidala in Star Wars 3: Revenge of the Sith 3. “…novelty is no reason to reject it.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her opinion on the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate 4. “There is an inverse yet universal correlation between inseam and dopeness.” – @chubbies on Instagram 5. “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” – Mahatma Gandhi 6. “The secret to getting ahead is getting started.” – Mark Twain 7. “If there is no way, create one.” – Anonymous 8. “Being on the edge isn’t as safe but the view is better.” – Ricky Gervais 9. “You can. End of story.” – @luxquotes on Instagram 10. “One reason why people resist change is that they focus on what they have to give up, rather than what they have to gain.” – Rick Godwin 11. “Time and tide wait for no man.” – (Ancient Proverb; check out Connor Franta’s “Life Doesn’t Wait” video) 12. “Perhaps our eyes need to be washed by our tears once in a while, so that we can see life with a clearer view again.” – Alex Tan 13. “The chains of habit are too light to be felt until they are too heavy to be broken.” – Dr. Samuel Johnson 14. “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.” – (Ancient Proverb) 15. “Obsessed is a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated.” – Anonymous   Brendon’s… 16. “Fail, it’s not in my dictionary. I’ve got a good dictionary up there and the words ‘fail’ and ‘failure’ have been ruled out for years. I don’t know what people are talking about who use that word. All I do know is temporary non-success, even if I’ve got to wait another 20 years for what I’m after, and I try to put that into people, no matter what their object in life.” – Percy Cerutty 17. “It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us. Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be?  You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you We were born to make manifest the glory of  God that is within us.  It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, Our presence automatically liberates others.” – Marianne Williamson 18. “The secret of success is learning how to use pain and pleasure instead of having pain and pleasure use you. If you do that, you’re in control of your life. If you don’t, life controls you.” – Tony Robbins 19. “If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else. It will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them” – Bruce Lee 20. “When you judge another, you do not define them. You define yourself.” – Wayne Dyer 21. “Love is the ability and willingness to allow those that you care for to be what they choose for themselves without any insistence that they satisfy you.” – Wayne Dyer 22. “Don’t ever let someone tell you that you can’t do something. You got a dream, you gotta protect it. When people can’t do something themselves, they are going to tell you that you can’t do it. You want something, go get it. Period.” – Will Smith 23. “Only a foolish dog barks at a flying bird” – Bob Marley 24. “What we can or cannot do, what we consider possible or impossible, is rarely a function of our true capability. It is more likely a function of our beliefs about who we are.” – Tony Robbins 25. “Ya know it’s funny, what’s happening to us. Our lives have become digital. Our friends, now virtual. And, anything you could ever wanna know is just a click away. Experiencing the world through second had information isn’t enough. If we want authenticity we have to initiate it. We will never know our full potential unless we push ourselves to find it. It’s this self discovery that inevitably takes us to the wildest places on earth.” – Tavis Rice 26. “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” – Ghandi 27. “Do not be afraid of death. Be afraid of the half-lived life!” – Laird Hamilton 28. “Make sure your worst enemy doesn’t live between your two ears.” – Laird Hamilton 29. “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.” – Nelson Mandela 30. “It is a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness.” – Seneca TEASER AUDIO: https://ia801509.us.archive.org/5/items/30MoreOfOurFavoriteQuotesMattBrendon/30%20More%20of%20Our%20Favorite%20Quotes%20%28Matt%20%26%20Brendon%29.mp3    

Here, I am going to present a lot of the background and details surrounding the 1973 Supreme Court Case that legalized abortion in the United States. Who were they? Roe – Norma McCorvey (legal pseudonym: “Jane Roe”) was a single, pregnant woman who brought a class action lawsuit against the State of Texas on the constitutionality of its abortion laws, which prohibited abortion unless it meant saving the woman’s life.¹ Wade – Henry Wade was the District Attorney of Dallas from 1951-1987 who dealt with this lawsuit as well as the conviction of Jack Ruby for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald.³ The Adventures of Norma McCorvey² Norma McCorvey (née Nelson) was born Sept. 22, 1947 in a small town named Lettesworth, LA, about 45 miles northwest of Baton Rouge. At an early age, she moved to Houston, TX, where she grew up. Her father walked out on her and her alcoholic mother. At 10, she robbed a cash register at a local gas station and subsequently ran away to Oklahoma to find a girl she knew. She and her friend were able to persuade a worker at a hotel to give them a room, where they stayed for 2 days until a maid walked in on the two kissing. This incident brought her in front of a judge who declared her a ward of the state and sent her to Mount St. Michael’s in Dallas where she was seduced by a nun and kicked out when she badmouthed another. From there, she was sent to the State School for Girls in Gainesville, FL. Here, she said, she was the happiest place she had ever been in her entire childhood. When she was sent back home, she would purposely do something bad to get sent back. After a final journey home from the school, she lived with her mother’s cousin who raped her multiple times—the cousin refuses that it ever happened. At the age of 16, she married Woody McCorvey. Two years later, she left him after he abused her. She then gave birth to her first baby, Melissa, at home in 1965 at the age of 18. Soon after, she began drinking uncontrollably as well as coming out as a lesbian. McCorvey then went on a weekend vacation to see some friends and left baby Melissa with her mother Mildred. When she got back, Mildred had replaced the baby with a doll and reported to the police that Norma had abandoned the baby and actually threw her out of the house. Her mother did not let her see the baby for 3 months until she was finally allowed to return home. One morning, Mildred gave half-asleep Norma “insurance papers” to sign. By signing the papers, Norma actually agreed to give her baby up for adoption. Melissa is now legally Mildred’s. Her mother kicked McCorvey out of the house again. She then gave birth to another baby she (intentionally) gave up for adoption. In 1969, while living with her father, McCorvey became pregnant a third time. Now she went to Dallas and lied saying that she had been raped, and thus by Texas State Law, she would be eligible to get a legal abortion. The police and authorities, though, were unable to get enough evidence and thus did not issue her an abortion. She then attempted to get an illegal abortion, but all the clinics had been closed down by the authorities. Norma McCorvey sought out two lawyers waiting for an abortion related suit to come along—Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. When they agreed to defend her case, Roe v. Wade officially began. It took three years to get the case to the Supreme Court, during which she had given birth to the child who was subsequently put up for adoption. Then, in the 1990’s, McCorvey converted to Roman Catholicism and became remorseful over the role she’d played in Roe v. Wade. She is now pro-life supporter and sets out to help other women in the same situation as she once was. (Interesting note: Norma McCorvey/Jane Roe never actually had an abortion.) The Case and Its Precedent The United States’ Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) saying that the constitution protects the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the 14th amendment, which protects minority rights by establishing due process.¹ The ruling allows for a pregnant woman to have an abortion at any time in her pregnancy, but gives leeway to allow states to regulate during the second and third trimesters (the second and third trimesters are between the 14th and 40th week of pregnancy where the baby has finished its crucial development stages and now, essentially, just has to grow). Now, after the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, abortion regulation is based upon the viability of the baby (or when the baby is able to live on its own separated from the mother and outside of the womb) rather than the trimester basis. I highly suggest that you go over to the IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law’s exhaustive compilation of official Supreme Court documents and audio files (called Oyez). Oyez is an incredible tool to learn more about the Court, the cases, and most importantly the arguments. Listening to the actual arguments on tape is fascinating, to say the least. Go check out this link for the “Roe v. Wade” page, and while you’re there, check out what else they have in store. Controversy Today This case was all about abortion and whether a woman had a choice to do to her body as she pleased or the baby had the right to life regardless of the situation. There is a huge controversy surrounding the ethics of abortion. Some say the baby has not actually begun living yet, but some say there is a living being at conception and to kill it is murder. I personally do not advocate heavily one side or the other—I am a pro-life-choicer. I believe, concurrent with my Episcopal faith, that we as a human race should value the rights of the unborn child as well as the rights of the pregnant woman. We should extinguish the need for an abortion by promoting safe, smart, and responsible sex. This is my view, let us know what’s yours. It is important though to regard both sides of the story as much broader beliefs as well: someone who does not advocate abortion but supports war is not pro-life, because the mass murder of an enemy (no matter the circumstance) is simply a choice, not a result of life. Matt Saucier Works Cited: ¹”Roe v. Wade – Case Brief Summary.” Lawnix Free Case Briefs RSS. Lawnix. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. ²”Norma McCorvey.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Jan. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. ³”Henry Wade.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Feb. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. TEASER AUDIO: https://ia600202.us.archive.org/21/items/RoeVWadeMatt/Roe%20v%20Wade%20%28Matt%29.mp3  

Today there is a great opportunity being lost in regards to the correctional system. The prison system in the United states is greatly broken, and it is harming many people – in 2014 the number of incarcerated people was 2.4 million. Our prison system has the opportunity to have an incredibly positive effect on many people in the United States but unfortunately that opportunity is not being taken advantage of. The development of a person is highly related to the environment that surrounds a person on a daily basis and the environment that they grew up in. People’s ideologies, worldviews, and ways of approaching life are profoundly affected by those around them. Why does this have anything to do with the prison system? Don’t worry – that will come into play later.   There is a common saying that you become the average of the five people that you spend the most time around. Whether or not that is entirely true that statement has profound implications.It states that the people you surround yourself with help to form who you are if you are open to their ways of interacting with the world. In order for people to be fully aided by the institutions that they are constituents of, those institutions must operate with a sense of empathy. They must have empathy to realize that people are human beings with value, lives of their own, and families. They should see that these people come from every background and they all view and interact with the world differently. Prisons should understand that a lot of the people going into prison come from an environment of fear, where they may feel as if the only way to survive is by committing crime. The opportunity that prison systems have that I have been alluding to is the fact that they have the ability to help their inmates live better lives and help them to also improve the lives of those around them (by no means am saying that all people in prison are “bad people”). If the prison system was set up in such a way that first – the only people going to jail were actual hardcore criminals rather than a combination of hardcore criminals and people who are discriminated against for committing small crimes that truly don’t harm many people; and second – it was built as a “rehabilitation center” to help people turn their lives around it would have an incredible impact. As I said before, people are largely influenced by the people that they spend time with and their environment, and if the people who have been formed by an environment of fear go to prison and return to that same environment with improved lives – they can help the other people in that environment to rise up as well and get out of a bad life situation. Unfortunately the “correctional system” is not exactly correctional as is explained in a quote by crimeinamerica.net: An estimated two-thirds (68 percent) of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years from prison, and three- quarters (77 percent) were arrested within five years, per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) . More than a third (37 percent) of prisoners who were arrested within five years of release were arrested within the first six months after release, with more than half (57 percent) arrested by the end of the first year. (Percent of Released Prisoners Returning to Incarceration) If the correctional system was truly that – correctional, than the statistics stated earlier would be much lower. It is obvious that the current way of doing things simply is not working well, and in an efficient system, when something does not work the right way it should be changed so that it does. In order for change to happen people need to be open to new ideas. Our society should establish a prison system that drastically changes the environment of the prisons that people must live in. Rather than being fearful places where people live in almost inhuman conditions they could be peaceful places where people can heal themselves mentally, physically, and spiritually.   Many people are familiar with a common example of an experiment that placed a rat in a cage – it had a spout that dripped only water, and another that produced cocaine for the rat. The cage was empty and the rat was by itself, completely deprived of sensory experience in a very artificial environment, not representing its natural environment at all. The rat continually pumped the cocaine spout, until it eventually died. There was one person named Bruce Alexander, who after the tests of the rats in bleak cages decided to make something called rat park. Rat park was a wonderful place for rats, multiple rats lived in the same area, as opposed to one rat in a single cage in the prior experiment. It was a much healthier and better environment for the rats with more things to do and experience. In rat park, there was also spouts set up for just  water and  water with drugs, like the prior experiment. The rats in rat park did not care about the water laced with drugs and Bruce Alexander even set the rats up where they lived in the isolated cage environment and took the drugs for 57 days, after that he moved the rats to rat park. The rats that had originally lived in the isolated cage taking the water laced with drugs and had been moved to rat park eventually grew to not care about the drugs that they had access to within rat park. Addiction to drugs could be potentially seen as an attempt by the user to fulfill a missing need – whether that be community, nature, exercise, happiness, motivation, fulfillment, etc.. It is easy to see that the current prison environment resembles the cells of the rats in the first experiment: devoid of sensory variation, nature, and sometimes community. Placing someone in solitary confinement because they were arrested for drug use is incredibly counter intuitive with awareness of the rat park experiment, that would simply be trying to fix an issue using the exact environment that can generate said issue.   The life of the modern person living in a city can also resemble that of the rat in the original experiment. Think of the average person who lives in an apartment and works in a cubicle, for explanation purposes – that person’s name is Joe. Joe wakes up in the morning in his room (cage) that is in his apartment (slightly bigger cage) . He goes down the elevator (another cage) to get to his car (also a cage) where he drives to his office building (a very large cage) and sits in his cubicle (cage). There he spends the day typing and shuffling numbers, completely disconnected from the natural environment and the people around him. Joe leaves his work cage to drive home in his car cage so he can sit in his apartment cage. He feels unsettled and bored so he turns on the TV and watches until gets tired and returns to his room cage to fall asleep. Joe wakes up the next morning and repeats the same process. Eventually, every piece of spare time Joe has he uses to watch TV- he is now addicted to television. It can be observed in hunter gatherer societies (the groups of humans closest to their natural state) that community is something that is integral to a full experience of life. Community is something that is necessary for people as a whole to be well off, we live in a society that divides people from each other. The division can be ideological, or physical, there are many people who live by themselves or do not have close connections with a group or tribe of people.  For anyone who lives that kind of life or is in a situation that does not fulfill basic needs, it is easy for them to develop addictions- for some people it can be TV, for others it can be drugs. If someone is living a life that resembles the isolated rat in the cage- taking that person and putting them in a different cage will potentially perpetuate rather than ameliorate their addiction.   What if we could make prisons so that they look like rat park instead? Provide an environment that helps people to heal instead of being further wounded. If our society provided something like that, our prison system would be much better off. It would also cost more to house each inmate – giving prisons an anti-incentive, so they no longer jail people for small crimes for the sake of filling quotas. As this is an essay on a social justice issue – all people should be respected and treated with dignity. Inmates are no exception – they deserve to be treated well. Throughout my academic career I have always placed importance on academic honesty, but the most compelled I have ever felt to be honest with my work was when a teacher placed the responsibility in the hands of the student. She would go student to student and simply ask if they did their homework- basing trustworthiness off an honor code. In that situation I felt respected as a student and paid that respect back by making sure I was honest every time. Inmates should be treated in a way where they are looked upon as if they have integrity, rather than as untrustworthy people who should be guarded at all times. People will act according to how you treat them, if you treat someone like a gentleman or gentlewoman they will act accordingly. Likewise, if you treat someone as if they do not matter then they will not respect you, or the rules that you wish for them to follow. If our society changed prisons from a cage to a place of reform, we would be better off as a whole. Brendon Caliva   Works Cited: mic.com/articles/86519/19-actual-statistics-about-americas-prison-system crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/29/percent-of-released-prisoners-returning-to-incarceration/ youtube.com/watch?v=sbQFNe3pkss TEASER AUDIO: https://ia801505.us.archive.org/25/items/ThePrisonSystemBrendon/The%20Prison%20System%20%28Brendon%29.mp3

Eleanor Roosevelt once distinctly stated, “With freedom comes responsibility.” The misnomer of license that is “freedom” twists its way through contemporary media much too frequently. Often times, this license is even further warped into a so-called “unalienable right”. In fact, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that all people have the right to freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. The freedoms stated in this Constitutional Amendment are no different from the freedom referred to by Mrs. Roosevelt—they require responsibility. Now, no doubt, any man or woman should be able to voice his or her opinion as freely as he or she desires, but if it so much as nudges the same endowed rights of another person, he or she is simply out of order. Thus, freedom is not a right; freedom is a responsibility. Religion – Christianity Religion actually parallels Quantum Physics tremendously well—no one can really explain it. Though not a man or woman here on Earth can be absolutely certain of what is to come, many human beings believe in some sort of religious afterlife according their denominations and religions. And despite that no one can actually prove the validity of any single religion, there are oodles of religions and denominations dispersing beliefs all across a VERY large spectrum. My understanding of religion is that it is man-made, but not in the disingenuous way. It is man-made because we humans created it to be a safe home or sanctuary that feels comfortable and inviting for like-mined individuals. This is why I believe that religion is like language: there are multiple languages around the world just as there are multiple religions around the world, and the people in those areas who are raised under said religions are as they are raised speaking said languages—it’s more a matter of geographical basis than ideology. In essence, religion is our language to speak love and compassion, which is the foundation of almost every religion and denomination. Thus religion is in itself a manifestation of and indirect conduit to morality and ethics—it is the tool we use to be good people. This enigma of religion creates a unique social predicament. It is not only right, but it has to be socially proper to accept others’ religions and to treat them just as one would treat his or her own religion: with sanctity. Associate the same situation with language: we don’t claim another language to be inferior to ours (or at least we shouldn’t). All language is a form of communication and only the place that you were born and/or raised affects what type you choose—religion is no different. Pope Francis says that “there is a limit” to free speech when it concerns offending someone’s religious beliefs (Bacon, “Pope on Paris…”). This release by the Catholic Church actually differs from the traditional belief of many Christians. As part of the largest religion in the western world, Christians have always had difficulties accepting other religions as potentially viable. Many Christians fall to the argument that their faith is simply infallible, and anyone who believes differently is, well, wrong. This attack on others’ religions does not resemble the true teachings of the Church. The Pope himself proclaimed that one “cannot make fun of the faith of others,” (Bacon, “Pope on Paris…”). Religion – Islam Another religious misunderstanding is that Islam is responsible for the murder at Charlie Hebdo. The truth in Islam is not mass slaughtering, but rather the calling “for tolerance and peace,” as an author of an English Pakistani News Site asserts. A middle-aged Muslim who works in Paris told reporters that he does not support Charlie Hebdo comics, but more importantly that he is against the “violence and killing” that Radical Muslims have recently exhibited (Xinhua, “French Muslims Call for…”). Another Parisian exclaims in the same article that he enjoys the humor. This twenty-seven-year-old understands that satire “criticizes problems that darken our daily life in a funny way.” Although he supports the use of comedy to lighten society’s gloom, he goes on to interpret this humor to be wrong if it should “insult or be used as a way to send hatred and contemptuous messages.” In the end, no religion condones gory satire or violent massacres; rather, they give light to an acceptance and dignity with which all men and women should be treated, regardless of affiliation. Charlie Hebdo – The Truth I believe that knowledge of a subject allows for a deeper understanding and a deeper debate on any given topic. Thus, the truth behind Charlie Hebdo’s comics needs to be unconstrained and open to all. A BBC article refers to Charlie Hebdo’s depictions as “provocative”, “obscene”, and part of a “left-wing radicalism” (“Charlie Hebdo and Its Place in…”). The author continues by describing satire as “the weapon of choice” against foreign religions and values. Unfortunately, this assertion has substantial validity. The author of said BBC article describes one comic as “police…holding [decapitated] heads of immigrants, nuns masturbating, and popes wearing condoms.” Certainly, the outrage can be understood because Charlie Hebdo pungently demeans many faiths of the world. Reasonably, though, the Radical Muslims’ attack did suggest a greater violation of rights than that of the cartoonists’ publications. Really, Charlie Hebdo held no responsibility for their gory satire just as the Radical Muslims held no responsibility for their despicable homicides. Tradition, though, carries far more importance to Europeans than it does to Americans. The tradition of French satire dates back to the before the 18th Century and the French Revolution (Piet, “Why Satire Is Holy…”). This custom of over 200 years runs strong and simply hasn’t diminished in popularity. This firm stance supports freedom of speech in that Charlie Hebdo’s “decision to mock the Prophet Muhammad is entirely consistent with its historical [culture],” (“Charlie Hebdo and Its Place in…”). Ultimately, such cartoons set out to “challenge the powers-that-be” according to the author—or at least do what is protected by the American First Amendment (i.e. speak out against other powers with one’s freedom of speech). Early French satirical writers’ “target” was often the royal family, he says. News of alleged sexual corruption spread through France like an epidemic during the turn into the 19th Century. This “target” remains the key problem with satire today—it’s being aimed at somebody. Though the American right to freedom of speech is intended to protect its citizens from an oppressive government taking action, targeting a faith, people, or value is simply detrimental to a tranquil society. Conclusion Although a touchy and difficult topic on which to speak (forgive the pun), freedom of speech relies heavily on the basic reasoning of Mrs. Roosevelt. When teenagers receive their first cars in high school, a huge “freedom door” is swung open. This “freedom door” requires responsibility, though, due to the fact that it empowers them, endowing them with an ability to hurt others (i.e. in a car wreck). On the road or on the Internet, human beings must constantly examine themselves to ensure the safety of others. With freedom comes responsibility…a responsibility built on the wellbeing of others. Perhaps the biblical reference provided by David Pelley (“Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you,”) represents something not just to live by, but also to teach by. He says it is the duty of “the intelligent, the sane, the honest, [and] the responsible” to use the “basic ability” of common sense to discern good from bad (Pelley, “Limits on Freedom of Speech…”). These responsible human beings must therefore understand acceptance and freedom. He then says that the “stupid, insane, dishonest, [and] irresponsible” simply cannot comprehend the coherence of such common sense. Ultimately, responsibility yields freedom, thus it is only the responsible who actually know true freedom. Matt Saucier Works Cited: “Charlie Hebdo and Its Place in French Journalism – BBC News.” BBC News. BBC, 8 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. Bacon, John. “Pope on Paris: ‘You Cannot Insult the Faith of Others'” USA Today. Gannett, 15 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. Pelley, David. “Limits on Freedom of Speech, of Religion.” Cambridge Times. Metroland Media, 14 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. Piet, Riet. “Why Satire Is Holy to the French.” Al Jazeera English. Al Jazeera, 14 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. Xinhua. “French Muslims Call for Respect without Abusing Freedom of Speech.” DailyTimes. Daily Times, 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. TEASER AUDIO: https://ia801500.us.archive.org/17/items/LimitsOnFreedomOfSpeechMatt/4-Limits%20on%20Freedom%20of%20Speech%20%28Matt%29.mp3