The Meaning of "Inherit the Wind"

I think the meaning of Inherit the Wind lies in the seperation of "Inherit" and "the Wind". To inherit means to pass something down through generations. In this case, religion was passed down through the close-knit, conservative families of Hillsboro. The wind is unseen and although we know it's there, we still can't see it; we can try to guess why it's there, but yet, we are only left to assume. This is how the earth came to be; we dont' know for sure, but have different theories, like evolution and the big bang theory.

Political Spectrum

I believe the government should regulate businesses to an extent to watch out for the consumer, implement the freedom of individual rights, graduated taxes, and also the government should provide services for the people. I ranked a "13", ranking between Hilary and Bill Clinton. I seemed to be pretty consistent with being on the left side (towards the libertarian), depending on what types of questions they asked and how I could answer them. However, I wasn't to an extreme (on the left side), but well enough in it to know I lean towards it.

Victimless Crimes: Who Exactly Do They Harm?

In Peter McWilliam's book, Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do, he writes, “As an adult, you should be allowed to do with your person and property whatever you choose, as long as you don’t physically harm the person or property of another.” This view is different than that of the government; when the threat to the morality (or general feelings based on issues of morality) of society is at stake, the government puts its foot down, harming no person besides the civil liberties of the one involved, for the most part. Euthanasia, sex education in schools and ticket scalping can all fit into this category, leaving the "perpetrator" scratching their head as to whom they are "violating".

Euthanasia (doctor assisted suicide) has been a conflict because even though the person is terminally ill and going to pass away anyways, the fact that they would go before they were "intended to go" by "the will of God" seems to guide the refusal of this law. Whose decision is it to whether you live or die? Are we all property of the government?

Sex education should be taught in schools. The morals of the students are not in jeopardy, but just the general knowledge to protect themselves. Just because people are told to abstain from sex doesn't mean they will; it only means they will look for a different source to get their information. Isn't it better to get a proper education on this type of a thing? Lives are at stake. The main focus should be the transmission of S.T.D.s, contraception, the hindrances of having children at a young age, and finally, abstinance. Abstinance should still be stressed at the forefront of this education, but to not properly arm people with this knowledge is foolish;this is what we really need to worry about, not the lack of morals.

America has capitalist views; this laissez -faire ("let-do") government is giving us mixed signals. People make money for themselves, and as long as it's not hurting anyone, it's usually fair game. Ticket scalping is an exception. Why is this? Is this transaction hurting anyone? No. One could argue that the buyer is getting cheated out of their money and maybe being put into a lousy seat, but couldn't we also accuse the school lunch program of doing that? Two dollars (outrageous price) for a slice of generic pizza (lousy seat=only option)? This is wrong in itself, but if we are taught this is ok sometimes, why not all the time? If there's someone who wants to buy a product, it should be "buyers beware" and settled between the two private parties. The government needs to find a better place to focus their time and money.

Should Intelligent Design be Taught in Schools?

The theory of evolution has long been debated; some believe in Intelligent Design and others believe in evolution. Some find themselves walking on the line, carefully stepping in the middle of the two theories. As a government, however, that has ruled out a theocracy, we must eliminate theories that strictly deal with religion, separating religion and state. "The Big Bang Theory", scientifically, can be mentioned because we truly don't know the exact way the universe formed, but millions of years of evidence (from evolution) should be the main focus. “You have to give kids the basics and the best that is available from the scientific community...It’s not a matter of fairness. It’s preparing people for college and the world economy—that’s really what the game is” (Matzke , p.76-77). People should be taught what is commonly accepted by scientists to be prepared for the world. Religion is the pillar on which intelligent design stands. Going in depth with intelligent design could potentially go against the wishes of those students who do not have a religion or who belong to religions that do not accept the theory. People are entitled to know the different theories, but when the main evidence of a theory comes from a religion/holy book, the entirity of the teaching should be questioned against the beliefs of the country; even though the majority of the country may believe in this theory, is it really fair to impose on others? On the other hand, without mentioning intelligent design, some people would be left questioning their religion against what they are learning in school, which should be "factual", and yet, they grew up with their religion being "factual" as well. "So be prepared to emphasize that students retain complete freedom of conscience—they do not have to give up their faith" (Matzke, p. 80) The common ground would be to mainly teach with evidence and have a day with how different religions feel they "came to be", including many religions; after all, America is becoming more diverse, and if we accept intelligent design in school, we'll have plenty more views how life came to be when other religions offer their theories.

Should the U.S. Promote Democracy Abroad?

The basic principals of Democracy are great; people get to vote, the citizens are in control of the country and rules will be followed to make sure the country is being treated fairly. However, if the United States is going to promote Democracy, then we must make sure we don't have more countries than we can handle. Many other types of government eye certain countries and would like to put in their type of government. This will cause many fights between those who are Democratic and those who are in the "neutral" countries trying to set up a governmental structure. While they are vulnerable, who will "watch them"? Are they signing their death wish?