“To secure these inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed…Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.” - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776.
We have the ability to hold our own purpose in a higher regard than we choose tom admit. Just how we are responsible for our actions as a functioning societal unit, we are also required to review the work being performed as a single individual regardless if the rule may be unwritten or in fact documented. This valid representation of what was taught and what was innate will begin with a just overview as to my own personal performance and how I came to this point in my studies. This will also explain the following paragraphs. When beginning this course I already had a strong opinion on both ethics in business and literature or journalism. These opinions ran deep as I always sought after information regarding the subtle omnipotence of well written and thoroughly researched prose. What I grossly failed to take into account over however many years my preferences have been installed is that my voice alone is exactly that. I struggled a great deal with the question of “Why does doing good things for others come so naturally to some and be such a chore to others?” This was one among many questions that split certain personalities and combined others which are, in fact, inherently incorrect. Put simply and harmoniously, the way that I feel should not dictate the way that others may. We should recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort; pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance. (Society of Professional Journalists, SPJ Code of Ethics, 1996) It is always the information that should be synthesized and not the status quo or individuals attitudes towards it.
The story can now actually begin after the above thoughts regarding my feelings throughout the course and the fact that the topic is not the point, the direction and correct process is. When trying to understand where to start on the topic, it became painfully clear that it was not be about who is right and who is wrong. When deciding what elements of my research to incorporate only tore the sides of the argument further apart. With this came the challenge of asking the right questions. The search questions gave out a lot of ideas that could further break down the issue at hand. For example, back in week two I asked, “What historical evidence has led and contributed to such a profound issue?” The first pieces of information came from sources that were extremely opposed to the idea of the church being involved in matters that are of the law. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most outspoken on the matter in 1776 and the decades following the constitution. He goes on to state, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”(Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, 1/1/1802)
After the above research came a much needed look from the other side of the matter and how those who supported Judeo Christian ideals in law felt about the matter. There is a myriad of supporters highlighting the “Trinity Decision”(The Supreme Court of the United States v. Holy Trinity Church, 143 U.S. 457,12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226) where they claim that in 1892 the Supreme Court the idea that we are a Christian nation...