Religion is a touchy subject to dive into, regardless of where you are. With that in mind, I think though that taking the environment where situations related to touchy issues unfold in should be habitually considered. For example, being on a college campus, we are here to learn, equitably and open mindedly, about all that we can; not to cloud information from the homegrown bias one may have been spoon fed as a child. Just because you’re are a firm believer in your own opinion, just because you are definitively correct without a slim chance of being proven wrong, doesn’t mean everyone else isn’t just as well. But, being blessed with outside the box thinking and the ability to swiftly, and beautifully, piece word together in an attempt to coerce readers and listeners onto one side was, in my ironically unimportant opinion, a sugar coated way of practicing political strategy; confuse and conquer. Specifically what I am referring to are the articles previously published in the WKU paper,
College Heights Herald. The written debate was authored by two former students, Brandon Wilson and Jacqueline Adams, and published on February 2nd of 2006. First, I will strip down both articles with personal observations and neutral facts, before discussing my personal beliefs and opinions on the issue at hand. Brandon Wilson, a man whom, in his own words had “…long since developed my own opinion of God and don’t need any help from a government professor on figuring out matters of a religious nature”, apparently wrote this essay after being ridiculed in a classroom for his own beliefs. He leaves the situation ambiguously grotesque but shares with readers that it involved a political science professor speaking to the class and referring to God as a woman. Apparently the paper was written in order to promote the idea that students and teachers alike should not be able to share political or religious opinion in class. Realistically, this radical solution to such a temporary and ultimately insignificant problem could be deemed as constitutional genocide, robbing Americans of there inalienable right to the freedom of speech and religion as supported by the Constitution alongside the Bill of Rights. Throughout his paper, Wilson persistently slanders people for their opinions, contradicting the entire purpose of his monograph, and even brands them with several intimidating, discriminating, and provocatively educated labels. “The absolute truth is that these professors who so proudly take part in these actions have egos that have closed their minds to new thinking, making them borderline bigots.” “Either way, students with opposing views usually go unheard either from silence or by force of the benevolent dictators of the classrooms.” First of all, benevolent dictators is a bit of an oxymoronic statement, then again, I suppose that’s the point… I digress. If harassment was really what Wilson was defending himself from, I highly doubt he would retaliate with the same ostentatious offense. People point out flaws that they find most prominent within themselves. I bring this up because I want take my critique a bit further, although everything I say may be invalid, I still like to follow my thoughts occasionally. I quote Brandon again with saying that the teachers have egos that have closed their minds to new thinking and lead them to become borderline bigots. Straying from this for a moment I must reflect on the innate nature of us sentient human beings and our predisposition towards judgmental impressions. Metacognition in hand, I accept my imperfections and temporarily give in to this un-subsiding wont. By no means am I qualified to jump to such extreme conclusions or… actually, I’ve spent enough time pre-defending myself, back to the point. I think that Brandon is dealing with an issue himself, partially his ego. Hypocrisy throughout his article make everything he says invalid. He titled ‘Keep Opinions Out of Classrooms’ which is arguably the