# data[].attributes.body
Deadly attack on Methodist church in Pakistan
BBC.com

This very sad, short article released by the BBC, details a terrorist attack that just occurred in Pakistan. A Methodist church was the target of a suicide bomber, and gun attacks. At least 8 people have died from the attacks. The Islamic State is taking responsibility for the incident. Two suicide bombers were stopped at the door of the church, and one detonated their vest at the door. Officials are saying that if he got inside, there would have been hundreds of casualties. The other bomber was stopped by gunfire by police. Two other suspects fled the scene, and a search is being conducted to find them. Dozens of people were injured. This attack is one of many carried out by terrorist organizations in the area.

This is a clear act of terrorism. "Terrorist seem to lack the ability to empathize with the innocent victims of their attacks." (MacKinnon, 2017) I cannot see an ethical justification for terrorism. It is so brutal, so violent. These attacks were carried out in the name of religion, something that is still very common in today's times. Discrimination was definitely a motive. I do not believe that these attacks are carried out with the eventual hope for peace. I can't honestly see a point of view on this where one could say that they had the right intention.

References:

1. Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

2. Deadly attack on Methodist church in Pakistan. (2017, December 17). Retrieved December 17, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42383436

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42383436

# data[].attributes.body
The Price Of War With North Korea

Written by Barry Posen

This article written by Barry Posen, is an interesting read. Posen discusses the looming possibility of war with North Korea, and the risk involved. He states that North Korea, South Korea, and Americans would lose a large number of lives, even if a preemptive strike was successful in taking out North Korea's Nuclear arsenal. He writes that it is unlikely that the U.S. would be able to eliminate all of North Korea's 250 mobile missile launchers, and even if we could, it would expose South Korean, and American soldiers to the threat of attack, and possible use of chemical warfare. Posen is very adamant about the fact that a "surprise attack" would be very unlikely, as North Korea has reliable intelligence sources, and they would know of an impending attack from military operation changes. He talks about President Trump's statements, particularly this quote: “Do not underestimate us. And do not try us.” Posen states that "Mr. Trump should not underestimate the steep human cost of initiating a war against Pyongyang." This is a dangerous situation, because if only a few of the nuclear arms that North Korea has are used, it could have catastrophic results on human life.

I believe that this relates to virtue ethics. "Contemporary moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre believes that virtues depend at least partly on the practices of a culture or society". (MacKinnon, 2015) Alasdair states that a "warlike society will value heroic virtues", and I believe our society values virtues in line with Trump's aggressiveness. It has become "good" to want to control, and attack other cultures. While I understand that the situation developing in North Korea, and our involvement is much more complicated than this, I do, however, I see similarities in evaluating this situation with virtue ethics. People seem to value President Trump's boastfulness, and willingness to place thousands of people in danger, simply because of a "we are Americans, and you should not mess with us" type of mentality.

References:

1. Posen, B. R. (2017, December 06). The Price of War With North Korea. Retrieved December 06, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/opinion/north-korea-united-states-war.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

2.  Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Undetectable = Untransmittable. So Why The Hell Isn’t That Catching On?

HuffingtonPost.com

Naina Khanna discusses how racism, and ignorance have played a role in the slow dissemination of valuable HIV research, to both the general public, as well as HIV patients. She talks about how viral suppression, when used by someone who is HIV positive, but undetectable, the virus is untransmittable. She says that this information was available as early as 2008. A survey conducted in 2013 by Positive Women's Network- USA, showed that over half of women who were diagnosed with HIV were never told by their health care providers that "viral suppression was an effective HIV prevention strategy". Khanna continues on with her views about how people with HIV "can't be trusted", and that this information needed to be passed out, but it wasn’t happening. She says that it boils down to race, and she gives a statistic that says that 80% of women with HIV in the U.S. are Black, or Latina.

I believe that this falls under Natural Law, and these doctors and healthcare professionals are in violation of it. I feel that it is unjust to withhold this information from people due to fear, or racism. As Khanna states, "The data was good enough to shift public health priorities but advancing human dignity of PLHIV was not a priority." Human dignity is a basic right, and fear and racism should not take this right away.

References:
1. Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

2. Khanna, N. (2017, December 01). Undetectable = Untransmittable. So Why The Hell Isn't That Catching On? Retrieved December 03, 2017, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/undetectableuntransmittable-so-why-the-hell-isnt_us_5a21b23fe4b04dacbc9bd6f0?section=us_huffpost-partners

# data[].attributes.body
Fighting Gay Rights and Abortion With the First Amendment

Nytimes.com

This informing article, written by Jeremy Peters, does a wonderful job of illustrating the current climate for civil rights in America today. Mr. Peters discusses a group called Alliance Defending Freedom, and how they are using the First Amendment to the Constitution to persuade public opinion. The group was defended by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as he stated that First Amendment rights were being attacked, specifically in regard to "free exercise of faith". Peter's states that this use of the First Amendment is "no accident", and that conservatives are using this narrative to "roll back laws on same sex marriage and abortion rights". The Alliance Defending Freedom is a known hate group that targets the LGBTQ+ community on many issues. Peters goes on to say "gay rights advocates say that Alliance Defending Freedom’s arguments about religious liberty and free expression mask another motivation: a deep-seated belief that gay people are immoral and that no one should be forced to recognize them as ordinary members of society."

It is clear that hate groups still exist in America, and they are thriving now more than ever. Our textbook, defining moral equality, states "If we do not treat others as equal persons, we are disrespecting them." I believe that Jeff Sessions, as well as groups like the Alliance defending Freedom are morally wrong for treating members of the LGBTQ+ community with disrespect, and hateful speech. Moral impartiality coincides with moral equality, and I think it applies here. If marriage between a man and a woman is morally right, then with moral impartiality, so should marriage between two same sex partners. This immoral use of the First Amendment demonstrates the lack of compassion, and concern for fellow human beings. This is unfortunately a common sight in America today.

References:

1. Mackinnon, B. & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

2. Peters, J. W. (2017, November 22). Fighting Gay Rights and Abortion With the First Amendment. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/us/politics/alliance-defending-freedom-gay-rights.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But it hopes to carve out an even wider sphere of protected religious expression at the court this term when the justices hear two more of its cases, one a challenge to a California law that requires " crisis pregnancy centers," which are run by abortion opponents, to provide women with information on how to obtain an abortion, and another in which it represents a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding.

While the abortion case is the latest legal volley in a generation-long battle by social conservatives to limit the impact of Roe v. Wade, the Colorado baker's case, which the court will hear next month, will test whether groups like the alliance can persuade the court to similarly blunt the sweep of Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that enshrined same-sex marriage into law, as well as the anti-discrimination laws protecting gay men and lesbians.

If there is a battle somewhere to restrict protections for gay men, lesbians or transgender people, chances are the alliance is there fighting it. They have defended the owners of a wedding chapel in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, who did not want to perform same-sex ceremonies. They have tried to stop a Charlotte, N.C., law that gave transgender people the right to use the bathroom of their choice. They backed the failed attempt by the Arizona legislature in 2014 to allow businesses to cite religious freedom in turning away same-sex couples.

"We think that in a free society people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman shouldn't be coerced by the government to promote a different view of marriage," said Jeremy Tedisco, a senior counsel and vice president of United States advocacy for the group, which is based in Scottsdale, Ariz. "We have to figure out how to live in a society with pluralistic and diverse views."

But civil liberties groups and gay rights advocates say that Alliance Defending Freedom's arguments about religious liberty and free expression mask another motivation: a deep-seated belief that gay people are immoral and that no one should be forced to recognize them as ordinary members of society.

"They are a very powerful part of this broader movement, which is trying to bring a very particular biblical worldview into dominance at all levels of government and society," said Peter Montgomery, a senior fellow at People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group.

"They've got some very big, very clear goals," said Mr. Montgomery, who has studied Alliance Defending Freedom since the group's founding in 1994.

One of those goals was to defend laws that criminalized gay and lesbian sexual conduct.

In a brief the alliance filed urging the Supreme Court not to overturn a Texas law that made homosexual activity illegal, its lawyers described gay men as diseased and as public health risks. The court decided 6-3 that the law was unconstitutional.

The United States is not the only place the group has been active. Before Belize's highest court struck down a law last year that banned "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," the group sent activists there to work with local lawyers who were trying to keep the prohibition in place. In India, an Alliance Defending Freedom-affiliated lawyer was part of the legal team that has defended a similar law in the country's supreme court. That law remains in place, though the Indian court recently signaled that it may revisit the issue.

And when Russia approved a law in 2013 that imposed a fine for what it called propagandizing "nontraditional" sexual relationships among minors - a move that led for calls to boycott the 2014 Olympics there - the Alliance Defending Freedom produced a nine-page memo in support of the law, saying its aim was to safeguard "the psychological or physical well-being of minors."

Mr. Tedisco said the group has never supported the criminalization of homosexual activity. In Belize and India, he noted, the laws the group supported applied to heterosexual sodomy as well. He described their involvement in both countries as "a small group of attorneys" who wanted "to resist the foreign activists that were trying to challenge their public health law."

Asked if he and other alliance lawyers believed gay men and lesbians were immoral, Mr. Tedisco said, "I'm not going to get into what the Bible says or teaches about homosexuality."

Alliance leaders have not always been so reticent.

Alan Sears, one of the founders of the group and its longtime president until recently, wrote a book in 2003 with Craig Osten titled "The Homosexual Agenda" in which they described possible consequences of same-sex marriage. "Why not two men and three women, or two men, one woman, and a dog and a chimpanzee?" the book said. "This means marriage will be no better than anonymous sodomy in a bathhouse."

How the alliance is approaching the case of the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, is an illustration of its evolving public relations strategy. Gone are the fiery denunciations of gay men and lesbians as sinners and reprobates.

A sophisticated multimedia campaign, called "Justice for Jack," portrays Mr. Phillips as the victim of heavy-handed state bureaucrats. Set to soft piano music, one video describes how Mr. Phillips has received death threats, hateful phone calls and lost 40 percent of his business.

"It's not about refusing business," Mr. Phillips's daughter says to the camera. "It's about having the freedom for him to artistically create something that allows him to honor Christ."

Donald Knapp, the Coeur d'Alene chapel owner who sued the city because he worried a new nondiscrimination ordinance would force him to marry same-sex couples, said the alliance not only took up his case but provided him with media training and flew him to Scottsdale to meet with other Christian business owners in similar positions.

"The A.D.F. was just trying to help us know what to say, how to state our position, what we believe in," Mr. Knapp said in an interview. "They spent a great deal of time with us."

Gay rights advocates acknowledge what they are up against. "They know those are messages that work better, and they are no longer leading with the messages they used to, which are 'gay people are pedophiles and we need to keep them away from our kids,'" said James Esseks, an A.C.L.U. lawyer who focuses on gender identity and sexual orientation issues. "It's a very intentional shift, a very strategic shift."

Back in Washington, the alliance's close connections with Mr. Sessions's Justice Department seem to be deepening. In September, the department filed a brief arguing that Mr. Phillips should not be forced to violate his faith.

"There is no clear line between his speech and his clients,'" it said. "He is giving effect to their message by crafting a unique product with his own two hands."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
same-sex marriage  civil unions and domestic partnerships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fighting Gay Rights and Abortion With the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But it hopes to carve out an even wider sphere of protected religious expression at the court this term when the justices hear two more of its cases, one a challenge to a California law that requires " crisis pregnancy centers," which are run by abortion opponents, to provide women with information on how to obtain an abortion, and another in which it represents a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding.