What I find so ridiculous about this controversy is that a few years ago South Park depicted Mohammad in an episode as part of a group of religious superheroes and no one noticed. Then this Dutch cartoon came out and all of sudden rules changed. The Dutch cartoons were definitely in bad taste and I could understand why a Muslim person would be offended, but after that controversy any depiction of the prophet was considered blasphemous and controversial. Even if South Park was specifically mocking Mohammad it should be expected because the creators set out to push buttons, but it is ridiculous that all they wanted to do is depict him in a cartoon and that is too much. The response of some Muslim groups has not helped Islam or Muslim people or helped deter Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Threats of violence from supposed Muslim group leaders only helps to misrepresent the true ideals of Islam. And as usual, the American media only adds fuel to the fire by making the episode a big deal.

Sam hasn't changed my opinion on most topics but he has definitely made me think and after some lectures I walked away feeling like I had a much better understanding of certain issues.
One thing that changed my opinion was the classes about how children usually grow up to be about as rich or as poor as their parents. The correlation between SAT scores and parents' income was very eye opening and made me see how unbalanced our society can be. I used to think America was more equal for everyone but after seeing this plus what we learned about Native Americans and what we learned about the criminal justice system I see some of the unfairness. I really liked reading Disposable People because I had no idea slavery still existed and that millions of people are still slaves. I like Sam's teaching style because he is not afraid to discuss any issue even the "bleeding" class I found it funny how some people were so angry and offended because he brought up the topic. In many classes at Penn State I feel like I am not learning anything useful but I feel like I've taken a lot away from this class because it's made me think about my own beliefs and my own place in society. I don't understand how there are some people in this class who always leave early and don't pay attention to a thing Sam says.

I agree with Sam that we need to question things even when it makes people uncomfortable. Reading these posts I see that some people were offended and angered by Sam talking about bleeding during class because it made them feel uncomfortable. Sam didn't put anyone on the spot and you're a girl on your period you didn't have to raise your hand if he asked who was menstruating. Sure you might be grossed out by it but like Sam said, its probably because you have been conditioned to think that way, its not like he intentionally tried to gross people out. It seems like most of the people offended are girls, but why is this? Is it because you are afraid of what guys will think and because you have been conditioned by our masculine culture to be ashamed to talk about it? All the time when I am watching TV I see commercials for tampons and other "feminine products" but the large majority of people do not seem to be grossed out or offended by these commercials. But how come if the issue is discussed in class in a little more detail people are offended? Talking about bleeding will get us no where because it is natural, but it is a perfect metaphor for race issues and other taboo topics. Sometimes people need to talk about things that make them uncomfortable otherwise we cannot continue to evolve as a society.

I don't think Sam mentions Asians much in class because America itself is more focused on white vs. black issues because of the past and what is still going on in black communities. There are poor Asian people but their situation is not as dire as blacks, hispanics, or native Americans. I myself wouldn't categorize Asians as white or black but put them in their own category. I think when most American people think of 'Asians" they think specifically of Chinese and Japanese culture, and not of Indian cultures, which is technically Asian.

I had never thought about Native Hawaiians in this way but their situation is very similar to that of Native Americans. It is nice to see that the government is trying to "right some wrongs" from the past by providing them with money and land but will this really help out their situation? Giving money to the poor does not help future generations and they usually do not become more productive. The way to get a society out of poverty is through education. Native Americans have received similar help from the government and some are allowed to govern themselves as it is mentioned in the article, but it has not seemed to help them. At the same time though I definitely feel that Native Hawaiians should govern themselves because their kingdom was broken up by the United States.

I disagree with Sam's comment that if we acknowledge the genocide of natives the USA has "no soul." I am not condoning what the white settlers did to the Indians, but the world was so different back then. Each generation is more accepting of other cultures than the last, and each generation has it slightly easier than past generations. European settlers were no angels, but they wouldn't travel on a boat for a month to an alien land for no reason. They did it because their living conditions were horrible. Three or four hundred years ago does not seem like a long time when you compare it to the history of the whole world, but almost every culture had much worse living conditions back then, unless you happened to be wealthy. Human beings have come a long way since the days when we stayed in tribes and had to hunt for food. Obviously we still have wars, conflicts, and poverty today, but during the time when settlers came to this land poverty was much more widespread and there was much more warfare all around the world. Things like poverty and warfare tend to make people more barbaric, and so I think the Europeans treatment of natives was due to the world they lived in. It is easy to look back now and say "wow I can't believe they treated people that way" but that was the world back then. It was a violent, fucked up place. Our modern world is still violent and fucked up in so many ways but at least now we have the resources to educate ourselves about other cultures. If you take someone who has been in prison his entire life and release him into the free world, he will act more barbaric than other people because of his living conditions. The European settlers lived in a more barbaric time and so they acted barbaric. The USA, despite its hypocrisy and problems, is still one of the most free places on Earth. If my grandparents had not emigrated here, who knows what they're children and their children's children would have had to go through in Europe.

I remember learning about Native Americans all throughout my school years from about 1st grade all through high school and even in college, so from my perspective most schools do a good job about teaching students about Native culture and civilization. What I did not learn all this time was about the conflict between settlers and natives. Teachers and textbooks told me about battles between settlers and Indians and about Andrew Jackson slaughtering Seminoles and taking Florida, and I heard facts about how many natives died from war and disease, but there was no emphasis on the genocide that occurred and no mention of the living conditions of Indians today. I think there should definitely be more emphasis on the plight of Indians and the poor conditions that they are in. I am not saying we need to describe in violent detail to 1st graders, but from a young age children should know what really happened, instead of perpetuating the myth that pilgrims and Indians got along so well and sat down and had Thanksgiving dinner together.

I agree with you. All these people getting married for these bad reasons has nothing to do with religion and if they think they're following their religion by getting married they are mistaken. Look at Sarah Palin. She forced her daughter to marry her boyfriend only because she got pregnant, and look what happened-they get divorced after 6 months, what a big surprise. I don't think its a stretch to say that people have abused the act of marriage to the point where it is almost like a joke.

To all the people who want to argue "marriage is a sacred institution" and "marriage was intended by God for blah blah blah," I think you should look a the history of marriage and maybe take Soc 030 so you can learn some thing. Marriage in the form we know it has really only been around for 200 years. The way we know it of course, is between a man and a woman who are in love and who decide for romantic reasons that they want to become unified. Before this though, marriage was a financial or political maneuver. People would marry to make connections with another family to gain power or political clout, people would marry for land or for livestock. People got married first for whatever reason, and then learned to live with the person whom they were married to. Marriage was not always about a man and a woman who are in love who want to be with each other forever. I also don't understand how you can argue that marriage is "sacred" when the divorce rate is 50%. Those who are allowed to marry apparently aren't treating it as sacred. The Christian Church and other religions have their own beliefs about marriage, but that needs to stay separate from the state and government.

I am reading some of these comments and some people are still arguing that being gay is a sin and that gay marriage should be banned because "God intended marriage to be a sacred thing between a man and a woman." I would like to start off by saying that no one knows what God says or thinks, everything written in the Bible was written by humans, this is why we have a separation of church and state, so that ignorant people can not run around making laws based on what they think God wants. I don't understand how people who were in class on Tuesday can still argue that being homosexual is a sin when I think Sam clearly demonstrated that people are born that way. Gay people would not go through all they go through and be labeled as outcasts as a choice. The Bible is a great book with a lot of great messages about how people should live their lives, but I think its perspective about homosexuality is wrong. Anything that one writes down will have some sort of bias, and I am sure that the Biblical writers had a bias towards homosexuality because of the society in which they lived in. If a gay person is "living in sin" because he/she is gay, than what are they supposed to do? You can't just switch over and start becoming attracted to another gender. Obviously, some men in prison do sexual things to other men, but this is because they are under different circumstances and don't have a choice and they have been hurt psychologically. If someone told me I should become attracted to men tomorrow, I would tell them that's impossible, I grew up attracted to females and that is just the way I am. If people choose to be gay, than what about those people who get shunned by their parents when they come out of the closet? What about gay people who live in societies in the world where homosexuality is a crime and subject to severe punishment? I know that if I were a gay person growing up in a place like Texas or Alabama I would be scared to walk around. I guess some people think gays will rot in hell just because of the way they were born.