The debate on death penalty

While the death penalty has been used for centuries, we continue to discuss the morality and efficacy of this punishment. Many people argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to potential murderers, terrorists and other violent criminals. However, others find the death penalty completely incompatible with the ethical standards of modern civilization. Although some states have outlawed the practice in the United States remains one of the few democracies to maintain capital punishment.

The term "death penalty" comes from the Latin "caput", meaning head. Death penalty, then, was a punishment reserved for serious crimes that warranted decapitation. These serious crimes, known as capital crimes, are generally limited to treason and murder in the United States, however, in different legal systems of foreign countries, the death penalty can be given for a minor crime, like robbery. The most common modern methods of execution are electrocution and lethal injection. These methods are considered more humane than previous methods, which included the use of a firing squad, burning at the stake, crucifixion, beheading, hanging and gassing.

Even with these more "humane" treatment, many people find it difficult to justify the suppression of human life - no matter how heinous the crime. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it is immoral. They ask: "How can the Government condemns the killing by killing?" For these critics, the death penalty is the ultimate betrayal of human rights and has no place in our society. Moreover, they argue, criminal proceedings are full of human error, causing innocent people to perform. Finally, opponents of the death penalty argue that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent penalty.

Supporters of the death penalty argue that capital punishment deters violent crime. Apart from the question of deterrence, supporters of capital punishment argue that such punishment is morally justified. In many cases, especially in the case of murder and terrorism, enforcement is the best remedy, because it ensures that a monstrous person will be able to harm the company. Finally, from an economic standpoint, executing a criminal will be less expensive access to seemingly unlimited appeals in U.S. courts.

The debate on the death penalty question the role and limitations of the justice process. If the government had the right to kill? And 'the death penalty morally justifiable?

The debate on cloning

Cloning is one of the most controversial issues in modern American politics. However, while many people have strong opinions and reactions on the issue, most lack a firm grasp of both history and the various arguments and viewpoints shared by the public.

Cloning is the process of creating an exact copy of the original, and recently, "cloning" refers to the replication of humans and animals live. somatic cell nuclear transfer, because the process is called, involves removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus from one cell organism to be cloned. In recent years there has been progress in both human and animal cloning. famous Scottish scientists cloned a sheep, and British scientists reportedly cloned a human embryo that survived for five days. Cloning is a very controversial subject that forces society to examine the limits of human control over their lives.

In 1997, Scottish scientists produced a famous female sheep "Dolly", using the process of reproductive cloning. Since then, other scientists have cloned other species, including cows and rabbits. More recently, scientists are attempting to reproduce humans through cloning. President Bush and the Republican Party are strongly opposed to human cloning. Conservatives tend to believe that life is a creation, not a commodity ", and that human cloning would have a disastrous impact on the American moral fabric.

There are practical considerations to the cloning debate, as well. Most medical experts believe that reproductive human cloning would not produce a baby health. In fact, many scientists predict that cloning would produce harmful abnormalities in the genes of a child. Many scientists and doctors welcome the advance of cloning for individual human cells. This process, called therapeutic cloning, adopts the concept of cloning on a micro scale, to help regenerate broken or diseased body parts. Some politicians, such as Republican Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania, support the idea of therapeutic cloning.

Critics of the process argue that therapeutic cloning should be prohibited, no matter how beneficial the practical applications may be. The most vocal critics of therapeutic cloning, especially by religious communities, argue that the destruction of human life, even at the cellular level, is a moral offense. These cells form the beginning of human life and human beings have no right to destroy life in order to create life. The creation of life, they argue, should be left to God

The cloning debate lends itself to big questions such as: It 's immoral to recreate life artificially? Human life really begin at the cellular level? If the government interfere with scientific advances that could benefit millions of people?

The affirmative action debate

Affirmative action is one of the most controversial political issues facing America. Very often, affirmative action assists disadvantaged groups by improving placement in higher education and employment, and the term is most often conceived as a program to improve the reputation of African Americans.

People take different positions on the issue, supporting their views with different motivations, such as the need for equality and natural competition. Although it was created to help advance the position of disadvantaged peoples, some seen as an affirmative action unfair and even harmful, force in our society.

While the Johnson administration institutionalized affirmative action, the struggle for equality that began a century earlier with the passage of important legislation. In 1860 and 1870, 13, amendments 14 and 15 respectively abolished slavery, guaranteed African Americans citizenship and voting rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 helped to ensure property rights for African Americans. However, in 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court segregation in justified cases, stating that African-Americans could be "separate but equal", stimulating the emergence of prejudice and racism of Jim Crow laws.

Started by Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, affirmative action was designed to provide equal benefits to all peoples, and to address past injustices government, providing support for groups that have been historically discriminated against. Many people argue that it is the primary responsibility of our government to correct inequalities and creating a more just society.

Many believe that affirmative action is more of a patch than a panacea. Opponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action quotas for the same purpose the concept of slavery reparations: it punishes the majority for the sins of previous generations. Moreover, while affirmative action might seem to make society more egalitarian, his critics argue that the policies are anti-meritocratic and are, in fact, a manifestation of "reverse racism".

The affirmative action debate lends itself to some important questions such as: The Government have a responsibility to correct social inequalities? If affirmative action to achieve its objective of creating a more just society, or is it a manifestation of "reverse racism"?

The abortion debate

One of the most controversial topics today, the abortion debate pits the rights of a mother against the rights of a fetus. The most common positions on the issue are "pro-choice" and "pro-life." These two points of view hinge on legal and moral considerations. Another common viewpoint is a more pragmatic blended, which states that abortion should be prohibited except for specific cases.

"Pro-choice" advocates stress a woman's right to choose whether and when to interrupt her pregnancy. In their view, a woman should have absolute control over their bodies and, by extension, beyond the survival of the fetus inside her. The "pro-life" camp argues that life begins at conception and any interruption of pregnancy after the formation of the embryo is tantamount to murder.

There is a basic and important legal debate rages, especially in the United States. Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that is still relevant today. The Court voted 7-2 to overturn all state laws prohibiting abortion. The court concluded that such laws violate the constitutional right to privacy of a woman. Since then, the moral debate has taken on political importance.

There are other points of view over the cut "pro choice" and "pro life" positions. For example, some pro-choice advocates believe abortion is morally permissible after the second quarter. Similarly, some pro-lifers allow abortion in extreme cases such as rape or incest. Approximately two percent of pregnancies occur in these conditions.

The abortion debate introduces a larger, overriding question: When the government must intervene in the personal lives of citizens, 'and when to avoid it?

American arrested in the Russian Compound

I was never arrested. I was arrested when I faithfully reported to the police at 9:00 Monday morning, January 9, 1996 (day before my birthday) the day after the Jerusalem Post published an article on the cover to shed light on what they were doing in the dark.

After my initial interrogation of six and a half hours on Thursday before, I reported as requested, to the police station Friday morning, Saturday morning, Sunday morning, then Monday morning the man who was actually nice to me, said His name was Moshe, was ordered to serve a deportation order. He expected me to sign it and upset, I purposely dropped the accursed paper from my hands and dropped to the ground where it belonged! I refused to sign it.

They put me in that prison called Russian Compound, built hundreds of years ago by the Turks, and then was shot by members of the Israeli parliament, saying that should be culled! I was in a cell made for ten one time we had twenty one people in it, with mats lying on the floor and squashed bugs on the walls and me But everyone (thank God) had bruises on them from their bites!

We had a "bath" for all of us in that cell: it was literally a hole in the floor and the shower pipe (no shower) was little more than that hole, and a dirty sink, and all had practically beg for toilet paper. I was there for more than two weeks before being deported after being brought before the Jerusalem magistrate (who refused to release me, being represented by famous Israeli lawyer Naftali Warzberger), and then before the Israeli High Court I agree that there was no reason you should 'T have been released, there was no risk of flight, but now were just going to deport me because my request was denied citizenship.

The Temple Mount Faithful paid for all my legal expenses, recognizing the entire trial was political and religious persecution against all of us, yet the left target little ol 'me!

Is it a crime to have an abiding love for Israel? To believe what is written in the Law and the Prophets concerning the Temple and our responsibility to build it? To mourn that has not yet been done? As the Jerusalem Talmud states: "every generation, when the Temple was not built as if the Temple were destroyed in it ...." It is not an emblem of the state of Israel is a gold menorah between two gold olive branches?

I stay in exile, banished from the Earth I love, because my hope, prayer and dream is for Israel to fulfill what the symbol represents: the Temple and the fate of Israel be a light to all nations?

Aid for Africa?

Because, after all these years, many countries in Africa still depends Western aid? Has such aid truly helped the situation or encouraged them to let others do for them what they will not do for themselves? (As the saying goes, you can give a man a fish and he'll eat once or you can teach him to fish and he'll eat a lot of times). This assistance is truly served the long-term interests of Africa or simply self-interest of bureaucracies flourish?

Why the white world Westerners seem more concerned for the welfare and safety of many Africans to tyrannical leaders of Africa? I raise this question because the West is usually despised as former colonialists and imperialists and is no longer welcome to govern with its law and order But it is asked to bail out African Countries after Their elected leaders rip them off ( swelling foreign bank accounts) and strip them naked from countries mismanagement painful.

Productive white farmers in Zimbabwe, for example, have brutally expelled from their family farms by squatters of color that do just that - squat - and the earth is at rest and orphan starving country. Yet racist Mugabe still in power (no visits by Jesse Jackson or a coalition of African-American ministers outraged about this reverse discrimination or threats of sanctions by the UN divided).

Here are some of (exacerbated by my experiences and observations), travel-writer Paul Theroux does in his book Dark Star Safari: Overland from Cairo to Cape Town.

I was fortunate to have also visited parts of Africa, after taking trains, planes and automobiles (hitchhiked for the most part) from Johannesburg to Cape Town, South Africa, the Garden Route to Durban, Swaziland, Kruger National Park and again in Johannesburg, Pretoria and the Voortrekker Monument National (not standing still?), while traveling to Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia).

I met an English girl on the train in Bulawayo I met near George, South Africa and came up with Bunji-bridge weeks before a trip back to Johannesburg.

I then went to Tel Aviv, Israel before coming to Home Sweet Home (USA).

May God bless Africa with genuine leaders who love their people and who put their people above their personal ambitions and temptations.