Gov and Law
5 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Conflict Transformation
Scoop.it!

The Middle East Channel: What's wrong with promoting religious freedom? - Foreign Policy (blog)

The Middle East Channel: What's wrong with promoting religious freedom? - Foreign Policy (blog) | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
Foreign Policy (blog)
The Middle East Channel: What's wrong with promoting religious freedom?
Foreign Policy (blog)
The U.S.

Via Grace Christian Kisame K
Matthew hintz's insight:

There is nothing wrong with promoting religious freedom. It only gets bad when there are terrorist attacks or bombings. Religious freedom is something everyone should be granted and not getting penalized for. 

more...
Christina Brady's comment, June 13, 2013 9:44 AM
When we get involved in conflicts that have a religious aspect to them, whatever we do is going to exacerbate the religious conflict. The ¨religious freedom¨ approach essential ostensibly ignores a really important aspect of some conflicts but really shows an implicit favoritism. While ¨engaging¨ religion is going to fuel the religious aspect of other conflicts. With the history that the US has of ¨intervening¨ and the way they generally ¨intervene¨, it´s going to be really difficult to do anything without exacerbating some conflicts.
Grace Christian Kisame K's comment, June 13, 2013 12:11 PM
Most of the conflicts are not religious in themselves but since one of the ways of classifying them is through the eyes of religion, then it is imperative to find ways to come of the murky waters of this perception of conflicts. In many respects the world has been divided up into regions along religious boundaries and thus you have a middle east that is considered Muslim, the western world that is considered Christian, an Africa that is considered to have (Muslim north Africa and a sub-Saharan Christian and ATS) and an Asia that is considered Buddhist, Muslim and so on. It is along these lines that alliances are sought during times of conflict because of the commonalities that unite given regions and beliefs and thus creating the divide between them and us (coalition of the willing and evil) etc.
But unless we stop looking at what makes societies different from along these religious lines and learn to rally ourselves along the commonalities that comprise of our societies, like the fact that we are human beings before anything else, we are bound to continue our road down the senseless horrors that are a result of conflicts ignited along religious lines. Even in most cases where there isn’t reason for us to use the locus of religion to explain certain conflicts, we find ourselves dragging religion into play and since it is considered, then it will truly come to pass.
Brian Bertram's comment, May 25, 2014 10:48 AM
I think religious freedom should be closely monitored. Terrorist use their religion as an excuse for what they do. This is not right. No religion should promote killing innocent people.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from International learning and global citizenship
Scoop.it!

My best citizenship lesson: using pens and paper to teach digital citizens - The Guardian

My best citizenship lesson: using pens and paper to teach digital citizens - The Guardian | Gov and Law | Scoop.it

The Guardian My best citizenship lesson: using pens and paper to teach digital citizens The Guardian Viewed under the cultural and global lens required of international school citizens, the definition is even harder to pin down.


Via Andrea Mason
Matthew hintz's insight:

Not everything can be taught over the computer, some things have to be taught with pen and paper. Everyone should be offered the opportunity to become a citizen but it doesn't  have to be taught all online. People can read books too to learn more about the country they are trying to move into. 

more...
Brian Bertram's comment, May 25, 2014 10:51 AM
I think that immigrants should have to go through a psych evaluation rather than a citizenship test to become a citizen. Knowing facts about a country doesn't make you a good citizen.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Arduino and Makers world
Scoop.it!

3D Printing: Important for Art History, Not Just Weapons - Hit & Run ...

3D Printing: Important for Art History, Not Just Weapons - Hit & Run ... | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
While we have tended to emphasize the public policy issues surrounding 3D printing of weapons here at Reason, the technology is really a game-changer,

Via Simone Majocchi
Matthew hintz's insight:

Not everything is bad. The government makes everything out to be a bad thing. A three d printer wouldn't be a bad thing at all I feel. Sure some bad things could come out of it, but for the most part it can do alot of good. For example they can bring back some of the things from history for people to see. 

more...
Michael Hanson's curator insight, May 14, 2014 5:59 PM

This article is about how 3D printing has a lot of artistic capabilities, and how the manufacture of guns using 3D printing has placed a bad reputation on it. Because of this, public policy issues are occurring and some politicians are considering reforming laws concerning 3D printing.

Brian Bertram's comment, May 17, 2014 2:49 PM
I don't see anything wrong with a 3d printer either. It's benefits out way the problems. It could allow for more complex machine designs. It can also be used for learning inside the class room. If someone is determined to make a weapon, they can still do it without a 3d printer.
Buster Meyer's comment, May 18, 2014 12:29 AM
I think 3D printers are good but not to make guns if you were to make it, you should do it with your hands! It has a lot of benefits though!
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from 2011 Amendments of the U.S Constitution
Scoop.it!

8th Amendment violation death penalty

8th Amendment violation death penalty | Gov and Law | Scoop.it

Man faces cruel punishment violating his 8th Amendment rights. The 8th Amendment protects citizens from cruel or unfair punishment. This right was violated when the man was sentenced to the death penalty. 


Via James Coppa
Matthew hintz's insight:

Everyone deserves a fair bail or even a fair sentence. They may have killed someone but the should get a reasonable bail, because it may have been a mistake. It states it in the 8th amendment that every one deserves fair bail. 

more...
Lakin's comment, May 1, 2014 3:45 PM
I believe that the government here is going against the 8th amendment because this man did commit a horrible crime, but he most likely had some mental problems. I think the government instead should send him to life in prison because it would be a more worse punishment and he would have to sit with his guilt.
Reed Klunder 's comment, May 2, 2014 3:23 PM
I find this article interesting because this man killed a lot of people but he has a mental problem. It would be understandable if he was at a normal state of mind but he's not. If he has no idea what he's doing or any sense of right and wrong then he doesn't deserve that punishment. Depending on how bad his mental problem is, he should get help. Would a baby get the death penalty if it killed someone?
Brian Bertram's comment, May 3, 2014 10:01 AM
I disagree with Matt, I think those who were arested because of being a serial killer or something else bad enough to get the death penalty should not be allowed to post bail. If they know they might get the death penalty, they might make a run for it. That way they would be free again.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Best Future Lawyers
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court to rule on 4th Amendment, cellphone searches - Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court to rule on 4th Amendment, cellphone searches - Los Angeles Times | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
Supreme Court to rule on 4th Amendment, cellphone searches Los Angeles Times WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court set the stage for an important 4th Amendment ruling Friday, announcing it will decide in this term whether police may inspect a suspect's...

Via Evemaran
Matthew hintz's insight:

If they don't have a real reason to search someone it would be breaking the 4th amendment. We as the people should get more  rights than having your things searched at random times for things they may not need to know about. It violates many rights.

more...
Lakin's comment, May 1, 2014 3:38 PM
This violates the 4th amendment and I believe we should more privacy rights. Its not fair to us how our lives are almost becoming a reality show n
Lakin's comment, May 1, 2014 3:38 PM
because we have no privacy and everyone seems to know everything.
Brian Bertram's comment, May 3, 2014 10:05 AM
True, random searches may violate some rights, but in the long run they could actually be saving lives. They might discover a bomb that the sensors didn't detect or some illegal drug that could kill someone. In the end, the safety of the public is more important to me.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

The Question of Federalism: SCOTUS, Marriage, and the Constitution | Intercollegiate Review

The Question of Federalism: SCOTUS, Marriage, and the Constitution | Intercollegiate Review | Gov and Law | Scoop.it

Via Teresa Herrin
Matthew hintz's insight:
I think that all people should have the same rights. Whether they are gay or straight everyone should have the same rights. Federalism or the government shouldn't control this. Everyone deserves to be a free person if they want to be gay let them be gay.
more...
Brian Bertram's comment, April 20, 2014 12:13 AM
They can be gay, but should they be allowed to be married. Marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between a man and a woman, not two men or two woman. This term does not apply to the gay community. The constitution does not give any rules on who can and can't get married. So this choice is left to the states. If the gay couple wants to get "married" then they should move to a state where it is legal.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Restore America
Scoop.it!

NewsBusted 4/04/14 - YouTube

“ TOPICS: -- Obamacare -- Warren Buffett Bracket -- Jimmy Carter -- Chris Christie -- California Prisons -- Ed Schultz -- Ann Coulter -- Siegfried and Roy Tige...”
Via Jack Hansen
Matthew hintz's insight:
This bashes on how obama has run the government. It talks about the national debt and obamacare.
more...
Brian Bertram's comment, April 13, 2014 12:19 AM
That sounds like an interesting article. Personally, I don't like what Obama has done with our government. What do you think is wrong with our government?
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

I will vote no to independence because I love Scotland

I will vote no to independence because I love Scotland | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
“Menzies Campbell: Those who argue against independence have a duty to recognise that most Scots want their parliament to have more powers”
Via Peter A Bell
Matthew hintz's insight:
This may not be about the US government but it talks about how Scotland wants to have there own independence. Everyone should be able to have there own independence and the US was really one of the first independent governments.
more...
Brian Bertram's comment, April 13, 2014 12:25 AM
<br>I agree to an extent. Countries should be allowed to have their own independence as long as they have a significant and just reason for wanting it. The civil war started because Abraham Lincoln didn't want the southern states to have their own independence. Do you think Scotland has a good reason for wanting independence.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from European Documentation Centre (EDC)
Scoop.it!

The European Council on Foreign Relations | Does size matter? Small states and EU foreign policy

The European Council on Foreign Relations | Does size matter? Small states and EU foreign policy | Gov and Law | Scoop.it

European Foreign Policy Scorecard


Via University of Nicosia Library
Matthew hintz's insight:

Yes size matters, even if you are a small state you should have a say in what is happening. It doesn't matter how big of a state you are or how small of one you are you should get a say in what is happening. Don't just let the big areas control the countries. 

more...
University of Nicosia Library's curator insight, February 12, 2013 7:49 AM

European Foreign Policy Scorecard

 

The European Council for Foreign Relations' (ECFR) European foreign policy scorecard tracks all the contributions - from EU institutions and the member states - that contribute to the impact of European foreign policy.

Rescooped by Matthew hintz from ReactNow - Latest News updated around the clock
Scoop.it!

Repeating Bad History: Legalization/Decriminalization of Marijuana Ignores Past Disasters

Repeating Bad History: Legalization/Decriminalization of Marijuana Ignores Past Disasters | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
Marijuana decriminalization/legalization for recreational use is one of the most intensely debated public policy issues because of the potential social cost and benefits associated with it. Marijua...

Via ReactNow
Matthew hintz's insight:

There are many good and bad things that could come out of legalizing marijuana. It could bring in so much revenue for the government and make the illegal drug dealers just work for the government. They bad things are it is a gate way drug. It can do harm but at the same time it can do good for the us government.  

more...
Alex Salazar's curator insight, March 26, 2014 1:23 PM

This talks about the issues concerning the legalization of marijuana.

Sam Burich's curator insight, March 27, 2014 3:56 PM

this article talks about current drug policies.

Brian Bertram's comment, May 17, 2014 2:44 PM
I personally think that marijuana should be legalized in the United States as long is it is heavily taxed. Just like alcohol during prohibition, marihuana is used because it is illegal. It gives people a rush when they break the law. If it was legalized less people would use it and it would be better for the country in all.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Open Innovation and Business Intelligence
Scoop.it!

Big Data's Dehumanizing Impact On Public Policy

Big Data's Dehumanizing Impact On Public Policy | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
Correlation-driven Big Data approaches to public policy issues try to de-humanize human decisions. That's always bad policy.

Via Sean Foreman
Matthew hintz's insight:

Everyone deserves to live there life. With the government "de-humanizing" the public it is kind of crap. Everyone deserves to live a free life until they do something wrong. And if they don't ever do anything wrong then they should live a free total life. 

more...
Brian Bertram's comment, May 17, 2014 2:52 PM
I agree with Matt to an extent. I think our lives should be free from interference, but I also think they should be interfered with in order to protect people from crimes. It is a hard choice. You have to find a middle ground between complete freedom and complete control.
Logan Felten's curator insight, May 27, 2014 9:39 AM

I think people should be free to live and do what they please to an extent. Sometimes I think a little interference is acceptable to protet people but I don't think full interference is needed, and I don't think anyone would want that.

Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Chapter 5 Bill of Rights Mini Project Nolasco
Scoop.it!

Casey Anthony, in Disguise, Takes the Fifth. 5th Amendment

Casey Anthony, in Disguise, Takes the Fifth. 5th Amendment | Gov and Law | Scoop.it

Casey Anthony took the 5th on every question asked about the murder trial. They had to allow Casey the rights to the 5th amendment and didnt have to testify against herself. This was a legal and smart plan by Casey Anthony which the court had to go by because of the Bill of Rights.


Via Brian Nolasco
Matthew hintz's insight:

She may not have done anything wrong and she may have done something wrong. But by the 5th amendment she couldn't be tried again because she was tried a couple times before this one. The other times make it so she shouldnt be tried again. 

more...
Kelsey Von Berge's curator insight, February 27, 2014 8:40 AM

Although the 5th amendment is something we need to follow and what governments have to proceed with, it really hurts in a case like this. Casey Anthony was all over the news and the fingers were pointing towards her for the murder by many people.  She chose to remain silent, making her seem more guilty, but also making the case harder to decide... Maybe that's why she turned out to be not guilty somehow.

Brian Bertram's comment, May 3, 2014 10:03 AM
She could be tried again but not under the same crime. If she has been tried several times already, she is probably guilty of something and should be put in jail.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E
Scoop.it!

Freedom, Federalism and the 1st amendment

Freedom, Federalism and the 1st amendment | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
“ A proper application of federalism could save the values of the First Amendment and the freedom of Jana Winter.”
Via Joe Russo
Matthew hintz's insight:
This one confused me a little bit. I feel that if you want to move because you don't like something then do it. I don't understand what this is saying about he moving. If you want to move it's your right to move. The federal government should control this part of a persons life either.
more...
Brian Bertram's comment, April 20, 2014 12:10 AM
I don't get your comment. This article had nothing to do with moving. It was about the first amendment or the freedom of speech and press. The lawyers of Homes were looking for the source that told the reporter. The reporter refused to give up her source because it was supposed to be anonymous.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Referendum 2014
Scoop.it!

New Statesman - Why federalism won’t save the Union

New Statesman - Why federalism won’t save the Union | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
“ The reality is that most Scots support greater fiscal autonomy and, so far, attempts to draw a line in the sand at the status quo - or, worse still, the Scotland Bill - have only played into the hands of the SNP. It makes sense, then, for unionists to seize the initiative by embracing federalism - or some variant of it - and handing Scots responsibility over the bulk of their financial and economic affairs. This would undermine the drive toward separation by sating the Scottish appetite for more self-government.” “ But would it?”
Via Peter A Bell
Matthew hintz's insight:
I think it has to be looked at from both side. Sure federalism has worked for the US and canada. But it doesn't mean that it'll work for every country. Not every country may want this either. If there government hasn't used federalism before it may be a large change for them.
more...
Brian Bertram's comment, April 20, 2014 12:16 AM
It is true that it might be a large change but it was a large change for us when the United States came up with the system that we use today. I believe that it could work for all countries as long as you give it some time. It might be a bit difficult to start but once you keep going it gets easier to have as more people understand how it works.
Rescooped by Matthew hintz from Restore America
Scoop.it!

Alan Grayson's Wife Accuses Him Of Trying To Kill Her, Admits Long-Term Abuse - The Shark Tank

Alan Grayson's Wife Accuses Him Of Trying To Kill Her, Admits Long-Term Abuse - The Shark Tank | Gov and Law | Scoop.it
“ As most divorce cases usually are, the recently filed and already ugly divorce case between Congressman Alan Grayson and his with Lolita, has taken another turn for worse for the self-proclaimed “Congressman with Guts.” During an interview with police over the recent incident at couples home in Orlando, Florida, in which Lolita Grayson accused the...”
Via Jack Hansen
Matthew hintz's insight:
He killed someone. No one should get away with killing anyone. It relates to the constitution because he didn't follow the set rules. Killing isn't right and should never happen.
more...
Brian Bertram's comment, April 13, 2014 12:21 AM
I agree that killing is bad. Something that is debated is the death penalty. Do you think this man should receive it?