Newspaper_Analysis

World Religions Newspaper/Internet/Magazine Article Assignment [pic] Submitted To: Mrs. Poulimenos Submitted By: Paige Leslie Friday, April 3rd, 2009 Table of Contents Article One: Pg. 3-4 Summary Pg. 5 Reflection Pg. 6 Article Two: Pg. 7 Summary Pg. 8 Reflection Pg. 9 Article Three: Pg. 10-11 Summary Pg. 12 Reflection Pg. 13 Article Four: Pg. 14- 16 Summary Pg. 17 Reflection Pg. 18 Article Five: Pg. 19 Summary Pg. 20 Reflection Pg. 21 Article One: Muslim nations mull taking legal measures for slights against Islam The Record, March 14, 2008 DAKAR, Senegal - The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots. Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital. The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world. Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments. "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits." Delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defence must be mounted. "Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group. The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various UN charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be toughened. "In our relation with the western world, we are going through a difficult time," Ihsanoglu told the summit's general assembly. "Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement." The International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to misuse the UN. Human Rights Watch said in a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not "give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views." Hemayet Uddin, the lead author of the OIC report and head of cultural affairs for the group, said legal action is needed because "this Islamophobia that we see in the world has gone far beyond a phobia." "It is now at the level of hatred, of xenophobia, and we need to act." A new charter drafted by the OIC commits the Muslim body "to protect and defend the true image of Islam" and "to combat the defamation of Islam." Summary The Muslim world feels they need to defend their religion against political cartoonists and racists and have developed ways of doing so. They are considering taking legal action against those that disgrace their religion or it’s sacred symbols. The Muslim leaders want to demand compensation from nations like Denmark, which allow publications of cartoons that slander their religion. Legal measures have not been decided on yet but the idea is that Muslims want western governments to put limits on the amount of freedom of speech their citizens have. Delegates here were given a report from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) with evidence of an anti-Islam speech and other actions from around the world. They want action on this issue now. "Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the OIC. The International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to misuse the UN. Human Rights Watch said in a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not "give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views." But the OIC still think legal action is needed because "this Islamophobia that we see in the world has gone far beyond a phobia." "It is now at the level of hatred, of xenophobia, and we need to act." A new charter drafted by the OIC commits the Muslim body "to protect and defend the true image of Islam" and "to combat the defamation of Islam." Reflection I feel that people have the right to believe in their own religion without being ridiculed for it. A person’s religion is very sacred to them and gives a lot of people purpose in their lives. This should be treated with respect by all people no matter what their views. Making jokes amongst your friends isn’t necessarily right but if said with discretion, not among people who would take offence to it, there shouldn’t be a problem. But if making fun of other’s beliefs becomes a public occurrence it can be very offensive and become a big problem. This is what has happened for the Muslims. Their religion has been slandered by newspaper cartoonists and has caused quite a bit of uproar and rightfully so, these cartoonists have taken it too far. It has gone from a harmless joke to a government debate. Cartoons about Newfies are very different to ones about other religions and I don’t think it is fair for the Muslim people. Religion is a very sensitive and personal matter and should be approached that way. I believe the Muslim people have every right to be offended and want the governments and the U.N. to make sure it stops. It would be strange if they didn’t because I know I wouldn’t want my religion and beliefs joked about in any publicized material. It goes from people making fun of my religion to trying to convince other people to do the same and I’m sure the Muslims that way too. It is something that the Muslims fear will quickly get out of control. Article Two: Funding for all religion' September 14, 2007 David Janik-Jones Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory's proposal to fund all religion-based schools is a tremendously silly idea. My atheist views aside, do those cheering this proposal not realize that if the government funds "any" religion then it cannot discriminate and must provide to "all" religions' So, in addition to the Catholic school system and common "major" religions -- Judaism, Islam and the myriad of incompatible branches of Christianity -- the government will be required to fund each and every faith. Will the government promise to support everyone's religious schools' Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and Native peoples' Buddhists, Hindus and Sikh schools' Zoroastrianism' Jainism' Shinto' What about wiccan, pagan, scientology and Unification Church schools, or for that matter, the church of the flying spaghetti monster' If the government truly supports an every-faith philosophy prepare for massive tax increases to support the required administrative apparatus and demands of all religions. Religious groups have suggested that funding for religious schooling brings Ontarians together -- that it's "the fair thing to do." That's totally wrong. Religions simply fracture societies into intolerant, hate-filled groups who think everyone else is wrong, and dull our children's curious minds. The solution' Remove all government support for any religious school systems. Religion is a private matter and should be taught at home or place of worship. The government has no business supporting any religion. David Janik-Jones Waterloo Summary The writer of this article, David Janik- Jones, has strong atheist views but tries to put them aside to write this article about the governments proposal to fund all religion-based schools. Jones thinks it is a silly idea because he doesn’t think that the government realizes this means that it can not discriminate against any religion or allow other people to do so. Then there is the issue of how many different religions there are out there and that if they do not accept to fund a curtain religion they are hypocrites. Also, if they leave out a religion then that could be testified as discrimination when really there were just too many to keep track of. This will also mean a massive increase in taxes to be able to pay for all this funding. Religious groups believe that funding for all religions will bring people in the community together when really all it will do is segregate it and cause disputes between religions, as well as not letting children explore different religions. Jones thinks that the solution is to remove government funding totally and make religion a practice done at home or in a place of worship. The government should not be involved in religion. Reflection I think that this idea proposed by the government to fund all religions seems like a good idea but when further explored does have more cons than pros. I agree that the government can not fund ALL religions, there is the possibility that some could be left out or they won’t be able to acquire sufficient funds for all of them. If a religion is left out then that will been seen as discriminating. They wanted to fund all religions in the first place so that they weren’t discriminating against other religions because at the moment this is how they are seen, by only funding the most popular religions. I don’t that this is right. Christianity and a few others were the only religions in Canada. Until immigration from other countries such as Africa, India and China started. With new nationalities came new religions but their populations aren’t as large and the government just kept funding the religions that founded Canada. This seems logical and wasn’t intentionally done to discriminate against other religions but some people see it that way. Funding all religions is the only way around the situation. I agree that the only way that the government could possibly get enough money to do this is by increasing taxes and this will then cause an outrage amongst people that aren’t religious. Why should people pay extra taxes for more funding in religions when they don’t participate in them' Instead of bringing the community together it will cause segregation. I don’t agree with the fact that this will not let children explore different religions. I think that if all religions are funded they will be better known and children will gain a better understanding of what is out there. However this will require a lot of money that our government doesn’t have so I don’t think that they should go through with this. You can’t please everyone and I think that religion classes today are doing a really good job of including as many religions as they can to teach us what else is out there. On this note I don’t think that the government should remove all funding because then children really won’t have a clue about religion unless it is strongly present in the family. For a lot of children this is not the case and they will never be exposed to religion. I think from there we will see a dramatic drop in people who practice on their own and attendance at church. As much as I don’t believe that religion and government should not be linked because of media’s portrayal of some religions, I think that governments funding of religion is key to keeping it alive. Schools are the ways of teaching children religion when their parents wont. I don’t think that if the government stops funding that religion will just die off, but it will become a lot harder to practice and less prominent in the views of society. Article Three: Film explores religion-homosexuality debate through Christian parents of gays The Record. October 05, 2007 NEW YORK - TV and film producer Daniel Karslake enjoyed working on segments about religion and gay relationships for the PBS gay news magazine "In the Life." Yet as he watched the wrenching debates over Scripture and homosexuality in Protestant denominations and society at large, he felt a need to reach beyond an audience that already accepted partnered gays and lesbians. The result opens nationally Friday in New York, a documentary called "For the Bible Tells Me So." The film takes a different approach to the gays-in-the-church debate. It focuses on devout Christians who learn their child is gay and how that affected their belief that same-sex relationships are prohibited by Scripture. "I made this movie for the movable middle in America," Karslake said, before a private screening Monday at New York's Marble Collegiate Church, where inspirational pastor Norman Vincent Peale preached for decades. Karslake, who is gay and a mainline Protestant, believes that "sincere, honourable, compassionate people" have been misled about how they should read the Bible. The documentary features many pro-gay veterans of the theological debates. Among them is Rev. Mel White, the former ghost writer for Rev. Jerry Falwell and founder of the gay and lesbian advocacy group Soulforce. So is Jimmy Creech, the former United Methodist pastor who lost his clergy credentials in the late 1990s for conducting same-sex union ceremonies. South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Rev. Peter Gomes, the prominent preacher and Harvard Divinity School professor, also make a case for acceptance. But the movie largely focuses on the personal stories of some well-known - and not-so-famous - mothers and fathers of gays and lesbians. The parents of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, talk about how they knew nothing about homosexuality until Robinson came out to them. They bought some books about "gay folks" and decided that what they had been taught was wrong. Former House Majority leader Dick Gephardt, a Missouri Democrat, and his family talk about his daughter Chrissy, who is a lesbian. A Bible-believing African-American couple from North Carolina, David and Brenda Poteat, told Karslake that while they still disapprove of homosexuality, they have found a way to build a good relationship with their lesbian daughter, Tonia. And a woman who was raised to interpret the Bible literally tells of her daughter's suicide after her mother repeatedly said she would never accept the girl as a lesbian. Christian conservatives are sure to be unhappy with their depiction. They appear largely through out takes from CNN's "Larry King Live" and other TV broadcasts, and as targets of protest. A pro-gay Lutheran couple from Minnesota, Phil and Randi Reitan, are shown leading a protest at the Colorado Springs, Colo., headquarters of Focus on the Family, the evangelical ministry led by James Dobson. The Reitans, who had worshipped for years in the Evanglical Lutheran Church in America, were arrested when they tried to enter the office and deliver a letter to Dobson about the pain he causes gays and lesbians. Their son Jake came out early in his teens, and they describe their emotional journey from shock and fear for their son's safety, to becoming activists who press churches to accept gay and lesbian relationships. In an interview, Robinson, who helped win support for the documentary when Karslake was just starting out, said the filmmaker had approached leading Christian conservatives about appearing in the film, but they declined when they learned about its approach. Craig Detweiler, director of Reel Spirituality, a think-tank for pastors and filmmakers at Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., saw the documentary when it premiered at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival with a group of Fuller students, who invited Karslake to meet with them afterward to discuss the movie. Detweiler said he admires the film because "it explores the human cost of the culture war. I think it tries to move the conversation beyond politics into the personal." But he indicated the documentary might end up being more controversial than transformative. "'For the Bible Tells Me So' represents one side of an ongoing argument, and the filmmakers seemed very interested in evoking a reaction," Detweiler said. "I think film at its best starts conversations, but this conversation will continue for quite some time." Summary Tv and film producer Daniel Karslake enjoyed working on episodes about religion and gay relationships for the PBS gay new magazine “In the Life.” He has watched many debates over scripture and homosexuality in Protestant churches and society’s depictions and felt the need to reach out to those people who don’t accept gays and lesbians. This film focuses on parents who are devout Christians who find out their child is gay and how that affects their beliefs. Karslake, who is gay and Protestant, believes that "sincere, honourable, compassionate people" have been misled about how they should read the Bible. The documentary features many pro-gay veterans of this debate, but the movie mostly focuses on the personal stories of some mothers and fathers of gays and lesbians. Such as a couple that still disapprove of homosexuality but have found a way to develop a good relationship with their lesbian daughter. And another about a mother who didn’t accept her daughters homosexuality and caused her to commit suicide. Craig Detweiler, director of Reel Spirituality, said he admires the film because "it explores the human cost of the culture war. I think it tries to move the conversation beyond politics into the personal." But he thinks the documentary might end up being more controversial than transforming. "'For the Bible Tells Me So' represents one side of an ongoing argument, and the filmmakers seemed very interested in evoking a reaction," Detweiler said. "I think film at its best starts conversations, but this conversation will continue for quite some time." Reflection: I think that this documentary is much needed in today’s society. Some people still don’t consider gays and lesbians people, they don’t accept them. I don’t believe this is right. People should have a right to their own opinions and beliefs without ridicule! I do admit that being friends with or even knowing someone who is gay or lesbian takes a little bit of getting used to but once you do you realize they are just like everyone else. We need to respect their decision and make them feel confident to be who they are. I have been subject to some ridicule in my life because of the way I dress/act and it has affected my self confidence. Fortunately, I have had help from friends and have been able to gain that back. Now I am not scared to be who I am. This is what gays and lesbians need to feel the same way. This brings us to our next point of families who are devout Catholics with gay or lesbian children. This is a tough situation and most families don’t know how to deal with it. This shouldn’t be a hard choice. When someone doesn’t know who to trust they often go to their family, or should be able to. But if the family does not accept them they have nowhere to go and as shown in this documentary, may commit suicide. Family members should always be there for each other even in a situation like this. The church does not frown upon gays, just the marriage of a gay couple. So really there shouldn’t be a problem from the religious side because you are not going against God when you are accepting your child. God would want you to do this and has not made any kind of law against it. This is probably because God had never heard of being gay in his time on earth therefore people think its wrong when really it was just unknown. This will be hard for the parents to do but they need to find the strength to do so for their kids sake. If children don’t have their family to go to what do they have' Article Four: Has rationalism gone too far in its assault on religion' The Record. November 08, 2007 KYL CHHATWAL In the 1760s, Scottish philosopher David Hume lived in Paris, where his writings earned him fame and admiration among the French Enlightenment philosophers of the Paris salons -- including Diderot and Voltaire. Hume was admired for his systematic and intelligent critiques of religion -- important because these thinkers were the first high-profile intellectuals of their time to publicly suggest religion was an outdated institution best removed from the social sphere. Today, a quarter-millennium later, religion is alive and well in the global social sphere, and appears -- on the surface anyway -- to be both cause and catalyst of this century's watershed events. From al-Qaida's religious justification of 9/11 to Israel's scriptural grounds for the occupation of Palestine, rarely in history has the clash of world religions so drastically seemed to threaten human destiny. Or, at least, rarely have people been duped into thinking it's that simple. With all the tension and disaster, it's hardly surprising that a militant anti-religiousness is rearing its unattractive head. Since 9/11, the English-speaking world has been awash with books, from Sam Harris' End of Faith to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, to Christopher Hitchens' God Is Not Great. They represent a vanguard of new atheism that goes much further in criticizing religiosity than the those in the 17th century ever dared. The premise of this new atheism is no longer a personal rejection of faith in God, it's an outright dismissal of the idea of god -- any god -- as both fundamentally wrong and fundamentally dangerous. Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, complains that faith is unscientific. Hitchens, a foreign correspondent, enumerates the violent events of recent history where religion played a role. Common among these authors is the unshakable conviction that rationalism is not just the best, but the only way people ought to approach the world nowadays. By writing these books they're attempting to convert as many as possible to their creed with what is (and I intend the irony here) a religious zeal. They'd dispute the adjective but not the claim. The authors are forthcoming with their missionary intentions. Dawkins even includes a list of atheist associations in his appendix he calls "friendly addresses for individuals escaping religion." Chapters are devoted to showing that even religious moderates aren't innocent because, according to the new atheists, moderation begets extremism. Since the Enlightenment, science has been seeking acceptance from its unwavering crank of an older sibling, religion. But ever more in Western society, and elsewhere in the world, the roles are being reversed. Among those who know the least about it, science is increasingly perceived as the source of answers to all possible questions; and scientists -- even when discussing topics beyond their fields of expertise --are increasingly the people appealed to for these answers. Enroute magazine recently ran an article, The Rad Scientist, chronicling and praising the lionization of scientist in the modern imagination, and quoting Seed Media Group chief executive Adam Bly saying, "Scientists are occupying the role of public intellectuals like never before (and) have a responsibility and opportunity to be that person at the dinner party ... who provides a deeper understanding." Yet it was not long ago that much of this "deeper understanding" was considered beyond science's purview. None of this is, of course, bad, or all that surprising. Science, or more generally rationalism, is the philosophy of our age, and in understanding everything from our material world to our emotional needs, we regularly appeal to our reason, with usually good result. But with this stream of militantly rationalist books -- militant to the point of being shockingly intolerant of any alternate approach to the world such as, say, faith -- the question becomes inescapable: Is it possible to take something like rationalism, and it's offspring science, too far' In Enlightenment France, Hume happily made friends with his contemporaries, but deliberately kept a distance, repulsed by what he called their "intolerant zeal." As for the new atheists, and their books with subtitles such as How Religion Poisons Everything, they unwittingly show all the characteristics of extremism -- from intolerant zeal to a self-aggrandizing view of their roles. (Dawkins reasons that if God did exist, he'd obviously be a scientist.) And like all dogmatism, theirs quickly descends into contradiction. Although they draw distinct contrasts between faith and rationalism, they ignore that even rationalism requires a not insignificant leap of faith -- namely, that what one's senses reveal about the world is, in fact, real. As someone raised on rationalism rather than religion, it's hard to disagree with everything the new atheists are saying. Religious fundamentalism also strikes me as dangerous, and the belief that the world is 6,000 years old is hopelessly misguided. It is tempting to blame the ills of the world on religion alone, but not that tempting. With a little thought, one quickly sees how religion is and was actually used by organizations such as al-Qaida, or the Milosevic Christian death squads in former Yugoslavia, or even by Western politicians such as George W. Bush. Anyone even mildly aware of human nature understands we have a basic need to create meaning in our lives, and we're often unable to do so on our own. We need help. We are human, after all. In this day and age, science and rationalism are the new ways many of us create meaning. They may not have the historical record of religion - but we should wait until they've been around quite as long before we say for sure. Summary In the 1760s religion was publicly suggested to be an outdated institution and should be removed from society by David Hume, who was very famous for his writings, and others of his class. Today, despite his voiced opinion, religion is still going strong all over the world and has even been suggested as justification for world issues. Rarely in history has the clash of world religion ever threatened human destiny or people have been so easy to accept it. With this tension and disaster atheist have taken the opportunity to once again voice their opinions. Many books have been published that go much further than those in the 17th century ever dared. The new view is no longer just a rejection of faith in God it is the rejection of the idea of God, any God. Saying it is wrong and dangerous. Others argue that religion is unscientific. The common idea among all these people is that rationalism is the best and only way to live in the world today. With their books they are trying now not only to voice their opinion, but to convert people to it. People that are of young age are more eager to accept these ideas, especially in western society. They want material answers that science can give to them. Religious people are now asking the question are rationalism and science views taking it too far' To someone raised on rationalism this atheist view is nothing new but to someone religiously raised this seems dangerous. But everyone knows that as human beings we need meaning in our lives and in this day in age rationalism and science is creating new meaning for people. They haven’t been around for quite as long or have the same documentation as religion but we shouldn’t judge them yet. Reflection: I am very torn between these two ideas of rationalism or religion. I have taken concepts from both and put them together. I do believe in God but like the article says most people of a young age in western society wants material answers and I can’t deny that I am one of them. It is very hard for me and many others to accept the idea of God with out any material evidence, to trust in him without any proof. Most religious people would say that they don’t need any proof and neither should we. We should believe in God no matter what; he should not need to prove himself to us. I am too creative, too open minded and somewhat uncertain to just accept an idea without exploring my options first and I’m sure others wish to do the same. I am not sure if this is being disloyal or just curious. If people want to promote atheism it is their right to do so. Religion does the same so why shouldn’t they. Catholics and other religious people may be more offended by this because this is a direct stab at them rather than just talking about their religion. If you consider atheism a religion then that is what it is about and they can’t help that. Religion has had to deal with a lot of criticism over the years and I agree that it has recently gotten worse with new scientific advances but they shouldn’t take offence to it. They should just keep doing what they have been doing for years and not let this new era bother them. Religion. just like anything, will gain and lose followers and as scary as this thought is, religious people should not be concerned with those that turn away. You can try and help them to become believers again but in the end it is their choice and you can’t make it for them. People have the right to believe in what they want. If you believe in what you think is right and don’t discriminate against people with different beliefs, then you are doing a great job. Article 5: Religion should not be mixed with politics The Record. September 11, 2008 Soha Elsayed It is interesting how U.S. vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is involving God in her speeches. Although I am a practising Muslim woman, it concerns me to see that religion is becoming intertwined in political speeches. One of the strong foundations of Western society is the separation of state from church, and for a number of reasons it is alarming that a politician would use this language. Tyrants and rulers in some Muslim countries use religion to manipulate and control their people. For a religious person it is easy to argue against a man-made rule, but it is almost impossible to argue God's rules and commands, so this becomes an easy access for politicians to get into the minds and hearts of religious people. These politicians use religion only as a tool to accomplish their plans. They don't care about the spirit of the religion they follow. As an example, Palin's statement, "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," conveys a clear contradiction to the way I view Christianity, as a religion of love. Are we living in an era where all religions are being distorted by their followers' In my opinion God talk divides people and creates an us-versus-them phenomenon. It shifts the focus away from what unites us to what divides us, and this is how conflict and hostility start. Imposing one's values, beliefs, and religion on people is an act of dictatorship and clearly contradicts democratic values and principles. I am afraid that if John McCain is elected president, non-Christians in the United States will be treated as second class citizens. Could this really happen' Well, can anyone really imagine that in the 21st-century U.S. that a vice-presidential candidate would call a bloody war in Iraq a mission from God' It is scary. Summary Lately, political leaders such as Sara Palin have been involving religion and God in their speeches. Although the woman writing this article is a practicing Muslim she is concerned about how religion is being intertwined into politics. Religion, especially in western society, has always been separate from politics and for many reasons this is alarming to her. Rulers in Muslim counties use religion to manipulate their people. By getting into their hearts to get what they want because religious people will dispute a man-made law but they won’t dispute one made by God. It is a tool for them, they don’t care about the spirit of the religion their people follow. In her opinion this is what starts conflict; by creating an us-versus-them and shifting the focus away from what unites us to what divides us. Controlling people by their religion is the act of a dictatorship not a democracy. She was afraid that if John McCain was elected that non religious people in the U.S.A would become second class citizens and that it is not hard to imagine because a bloody war in Iraq has become a mission from God. Reflection I 100% agree with this article and can see where this woman is coming from. Sara Palin may have been innocently including God in her speeches, not as a way to achieve their goals. But this idea is a reality in other countries so who is to say that it won’t become that way in our country. When leaders start using religion as a tool, they no longer care about their people and it becomes a dictatorship. This is not right. The government should not be allowed to do this, but who is going to stop them if it does become a dictatorship' When the people no longer have the right to vote so they will just have to live with it, but they shouldn’t have to. I understand that our government does support our religions and we are very thankful for it but when does it cross the line from support to abuse' If it turns into abuse it could divide people and cause conflict within religions. This is because some will do anything that is a message from God, while others will use their common sense and judge what they are being told. Unfortunately there isn’t much we can do to stop it except vote for those people that we think will not turn our government into a dictatorship. Lastly, I do realize that this is more of a U.S issue but we should not turn a blind eye to it just because it isn’t happening to us. The reality is that it could. The U.S.A and Canada are very close and things that happen to one will affect the other. This is something for us to consider if this issue arises again in the future.