It seems as though everytime I read the news, another war is just around the corner. However, with Iran refusing to put a hault on their nuclear program, the threat is very real. If Iran doesn't halt production then President Bush said the U.S. will attack. The U.S. believes that because they are working on a nuclear program that terrorist acts must be in the works. According to Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, "any country or power which invades Iran will face a crushing response. We will defend our security and our country in the strongest way."
Although the U.S. may be the world powerhouse, other countries are not afraid to fight. We have found this to be true in both Afghanistan and Iraq. After thinking it through, Pour-Mohammadi's quote frightens me a bit. It's almost as if he is implying that the use of nuclear weapons is a definate possibility. He said they will defend their country in the strongest way. So who is to say that if their backs are against the wall in a war they wouldn't use nuclear weapons?
I hope that war isn't in our near future, but because the U.S. believes it must police the world war will always be an option. This war, unlike Iraq, could prove to be more devastating because it could affect the homefront. According to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "if Iran's rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime." It sounds as though both countries will continue doing what they've been doing. However, this will lead to some kind of conflict, I just hope it can be resolved by words rather war.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
A New Issue, A New Outlook, A New War?
With the Bush Administration nearing its end, presidential nominees Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have developed plans for a staged withdrawal of troops from the Middle East. However, with Iran’s recent nuclear threats, it poses the question, “Is America now nearing a war with Iran.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently accused Iran of "pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon.” Iran claims their developments are for peace-keeping reasons alone; however, nuclear weapons pose a threat to all mankind and the issue should not be taken lightly. By proliferating nuclear weapons, Iran would be violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been signed by a total of 187 parties to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. As a world power, America must take a stand on the issue, but they should take all necessary measures to avoid war.
According to CNN, Iran’s current exploration with uranium deposits has forced the United States government to impose stiff sanctions, targeting two Iranian military groups and a number of Iranian banks. An Iranian agency known as the Quds Force has been suspected of having direct ties to the training and arming of Shiite militias in Iraq, proof of Iran’s backing of terrorism. United States Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also revealed that "Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists.” To combat the issue, the United States has called on numerous Iranian banks to end business relations with government officials. America is currently fighting the “War on Terror”, which is exactly why we should continue to place even harsher sanctions on not only Iran, but also on other nations supporting terrorism. Sanctions do not directly result in bloodshed; therefore, America should continue this process until war is absolutely necessary.
As of now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is not taking America’s sanctions seriously; however, I believe threats from America and other allies would force the Iranian government to step down, just as Iran’s nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani did this past Saturday. His resignation could possibly make talks that much more difficult due to his moderate views, but it could also mark the first step in Iran’s disengagement of nuclear activity.
I feel that at this point in time the United States government has taken the essential steps to end Iran’s nuclear developments. Backing by the United Nations Security Council and the European Union will play a major role in bringing the uranium enrichment program to a halt. Rice later stated that “if Iran’s rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime.” There is no evidence that the Iranian government has nuclear weapons at this time, and Vice President Dick Cheney assured Americans that the United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. What would be the point of attacking a nation on the premise of nuclear war if they do not possess nuclear weapons? For this reason, America should continue to take a diplomatic approach to the situation.
According to CNN, Iran’s current exploration with uranium deposits has forced the United States government to impose stiff sanctions, targeting two Iranian military groups and a number of Iranian banks. An Iranian agency known as the Quds Force has been suspected of having direct ties to the training and arming of Shiite militias in Iraq, proof of Iran’s backing of terrorism. United States Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also revealed that "Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists.” To combat the issue, the United States has called on numerous Iranian banks to end business relations with government officials. America is currently fighting the “War on Terror”, which is exactly why we should continue to place even harsher sanctions on not only Iran, but also on other nations supporting terrorism. Sanctions do not directly result in bloodshed; therefore, America should continue this process until war is absolutely necessary.
As of now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is not taking America’s sanctions seriously; however, I believe threats from America and other allies would force the Iranian government to step down, just as Iran’s nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani did this past Saturday. His resignation could possibly make talks that much more difficult due to his moderate views, but it could also mark the first step in Iran’s disengagement of nuclear activity.
I feel that at this point in time the United States government has taken the essential steps to end Iran’s nuclear developments. Backing by the United Nations Security Council and the European Union will play a major role in bringing the uranium enrichment program to a halt. Rice later stated that “if Iran’s rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime.” There is no evidence that the Iranian government has nuclear weapons at this time, and Vice President Dick Cheney assured Americans that the United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. What would be the point of attacking a nation on the premise of nuclear war if they do not possess nuclear weapons? For this reason, America should continue to take a diplomatic approach to the situation.
Enemies - Who will it be next?
"Paranoia is the delusion that your enemies are organized."
- Arthur D. Hlavaty
“We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
- President George W. Bush
The current President of the United States is on a literal warpath. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. All for the reason of taking out some supposed “Axis of Evil.”
The reason for Afghanistan was 9/11. This war started by counterattacking an enemy faction. It had a purpose, if not a somewhat contradictory one. “You attack us, we fight back” –the typical war.
Next came Iraq. We were in the area; why not flush out the enemy of our president’s father? In order to justify the occupation of this country, we deemed a section of the world the “Axis of Evil.” If we don’t agree with you, you’re our enemy and must be flushed out. The enemies are everywhere in the Middle East, according to Bush. They’re in Afghanistan, no wait! They’re in Iraq! Oh, now they’re in Iran! National Security, sniffing out the enemy, striking first – aren’t these all ways of saying paranoia? Where are the enemies besides everywhere?
Now Iran. We think you may be supplying our enemies with forces and weapons, says our government. According to an article by the New York Times, “‘They're training to kill coalition forces,’ said one senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘Their comments about wanting to see a stable Iraq are belied by this type of activity.’” Another senior administration official referred the arrest of five Iranians in Iraq whom the Americans accused of running guns and planning sectarian attacks. All of these attributions are by anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are often not credible – if real at all.
America is attacking countries that have an agenda, according to our government. Don’t we, in fact, have an agenda against these countries?
Attacking Iran is as reasonless as attacking Iraq. The president’s reasoning is atomic weapons. Is he afraid they will be irresponsible with weapons? Did America not accidentally ship six nuclear weapons in September to the wrong military base and not even notice for six hours? Why are America’s allies, such as Israel – also a middle-eastern country – allowed to have nuclear weapons?
- Arthur D. Hlavaty
“We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
- President George W. Bush
The current President of the United States is on a literal warpath. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. All for the reason of taking out some supposed “Axis of Evil.”
The reason for Afghanistan was 9/11. This war started by counterattacking an enemy faction. It had a purpose, if not a somewhat contradictory one. “You attack us, we fight back” –the typical war.
Next came Iraq. We were in the area; why not flush out the enemy of our president’s father? In order to justify the occupation of this country, we deemed a section of the world the “Axis of Evil.” If we don’t agree with you, you’re our enemy and must be flushed out. The enemies are everywhere in the Middle East, according to Bush. They’re in Afghanistan, no wait! They’re in Iraq! Oh, now they’re in Iran! National Security, sniffing out the enemy, striking first – aren’t these all ways of saying paranoia? Where are the enemies besides everywhere?
Now Iran. We think you may be supplying our enemies with forces and weapons, says our government. According to an article by the New York Times, “‘They're training to kill coalition forces,’ said one senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘Their comments about wanting to see a stable Iraq are belied by this type of activity.’” Another senior administration official referred the arrest of five Iranians in Iraq whom the Americans accused of running guns and planning sectarian attacks. All of these attributions are by anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are often not credible – if real at all.
America is attacking countries that have an agenda, according to our government. Don’t we, in fact, have an agenda against these countries?
Attacking Iran is as reasonless as attacking Iraq. The president’s reasoning is atomic weapons. Is he afraid they will be irresponsible with weapons? Did America not accidentally ship six nuclear weapons in September to the wrong military base and not even notice for six hours? Why are America’s allies, such as Israel – also a middle-eastern country – allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Patience For Iran
As the pressure between Iran and the United States increases, the question many Americans will ask is should we attack now?
According to the Council of Foreign Relations, the U.S. State Department has claimed that Iran is the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” The Council further states that Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The tensions between Iran and the United States has increased as Iran’s nuclear program has progressed in constructing a power plant, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. However, the United States believes Iran’s power plant will go for the production of nuclear weapons and has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly.
Iran is a threat to the United States and the evidence of that threat is real. However, at this point in time, now is not the time to act.
Although Iran is making nuclear progression, it is slow. According to the Washington Post, although they threaten to wipe Israel off the map, U.S. intelligence estimates that an Iranian bomb would take ten years to construct. The U.S. military is already focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and this will give it time to take care of its priorities in those countries.
This will also give the military time to recover from the 3,831 U.S troop casualties. According to CNN reporters, the Iraq war what?has dropped from 72 percent to 32 percent for this reason and for failed attempt to find any weapons of mass destruction.
The United States continues to drag on in Iraq as it pays $12 billion monthly in 2007 and $200 million daily. This as well as the operation in Afghanistan accumulates to $800 billion dollar in war spending. These facts come from Deborah White of Iraq War results and statistics as of October 17, 2007.
Because of the above points, I believe that we should wait to attack Iran.
According to the Council of Foreign Relations, the U.S. State Department has claimed that Iran is the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” The Council further states that Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The tensions between Iran and the United States has increased as Iran’s nuclear program has progressed in constructing a power plant, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. However, the United States believes Iran’s power plant will go for the production of nuclear weapons and has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly.
Iran is a threat to the United States and the evidence of that threat is real. However, at this point in time, now is not the time to act.
Although Iran is making nuclear progression, it is slow. According to the Washington Post, although they threaten to wipe Israel off the map, U.S. intelligence estimates that an Iranian bomb would take ten years to construct. The U.S. military is already focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and this will give it time to take care of its priorities in those countries.
This will also give the military time to recover from the 3,831 U.S troop casualties. According to CNN reporters, the Iraq war what?has dropped from 72 percent to 32 percent for this reason and for failed attempt to find any weapons of mass destruction.
The United States continues to drag on in Iraq as it pays $12 billion monthly in 2007 and $200 million daily. This as well as the operation in Afghanistan accumulates to $800 billion dollar in war spending. These facts come from Deborah White of Iraq War results and statistics as of October 17, 2007.
Because of the above points, I believe that we should wait to attack Iran.
Security Guarantees Will Work
Iran, a nation located in the Middle East that is developing its nuclear technology, should be offered a security guarantee from the United States.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims this technology is entirely peaceful. "We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity," he said.
Many are suspicious of Iran's nuclear development, due to its support of terrorism and its threat to wipe the nation of Israel off of the map. "Capability equals threat," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman. "Iran's president has lied before, and I don't think he can be trusted."
According to research done by Andrew Kent, an associate professor of law, the Bush Administration is seriously contemplating attacking Iran if they do not stop proliferating.
An attack against Iran would not be entirely successful. According to Michel Chossudovsky, the Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, if attacked, Iran would retaliate. "Iran has a broad arsenal of weapons," said Chossudovsky. He also believes that attacking Iran could harm United States progress in Iraq.
One of the only ways to solve the current situation in Iran is to offer them a security guarantee.
"The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat, but we won't offer them a security guarantee; a perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat," said Professor Sagan of Stanford University.
Offering Iran a security guarantee would mean protecting them from enemy strikes. If they are in fact creating an arsenal of nuclear weapons, they would be doing so for their own security purposes. According to Sagan, Iran sees the United States as a threat. Removing this threat would leave them with no reason to continue their proliferation.
Also, the United States is the world's superpower. The United States is the best choice for security, and according to Jahangir Amuzegar, an economic ambassador to Iran's pre-1979 government, Iran wants a security guarantee. "Doesn't matter who gives them the deal. Iran just wants a deal," said Amuzegar.
If we offer Iran, a country with capability to produce nuclear weapons, this security guarantee, it would remove the United States and its allies as a threat. If Iran takes the offer, they may stop their proliferation.
Diplomatic engagement can truly effect the progress of peace.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims this technology is entirely peaceful. "We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity," he said.
Many are suspicious of Iran's nuclear development, due to its support of terrorism and its threat to wipe the nation of Israel off of the map. "Capability equals threat," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman. "Iran's president has lied before, and I don't think he can be trusted."
According to research done by Andrew Kent, an associate professor of law, the Bush Administration is seriously contemplating attacking Iran if they do not stop proliferating.
An attack against Iran would not be entirely successful. According to Michel Chossudovsky, the Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, if attacked, Iran would retaliate. "Iran has a broad arsenal of weapons," said Chossudovsky. He also believes that attacking Iran could harm United States progress in Iraq.
One of the only ways to solve the current situation in Iran is to offer them a security guarantee.
"The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat, but we won't offer them a security guarantee; a perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat," said Professor Sagan of Stanford University.
Offering Iran a security guarantee would mean protecting them from enemy strikes. If they are in fact creating an arsenal of nuclear weapons, they would be doing so for their own security purposes. According to Sagan, Iran sees the United States as a threat. Removing this threat would leave them with no reason to continue their proliferation.
Also, the United States is the world's superpower. The United States is the best choice for security, and according to Jahangir Amuzegar, an economic ambassador to Iran's pre-1979 government, Iran wants a security guarantee. "Doesn't matter who gives them the deal. Iran just wants a deal," said Amuzegar.
If we offer Iran, a country with capability to produce nuclear weapons, this security guarantee, it would remove the United States and its allies as a threat. If Iran takes the offer, they may stop their proliferation.
Diplomatic engagement can truly effect the progress of peace.
Iran is not dangerous yet
“If the U.S. invades Iran, Iran will see that they have no chance of winning and will use nuclear weapons,” says David Ochmanek, Director of Project AIR FORCE Strategy and Doctrine Program. Attacking Iran will lead to another war, and possibly the extinction of human life in several parts of the world. Iran is seen as a threat because they are exploring the development of Uranium deposits that can eventually produce nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the act of going into a country forcefully and finding nuclear weapons has been a failure for the United States. Need I remind you of the Iraqi War? The United States went into Iraq to take out nuclear weapons which didn’t even exist. Ever since then, the U.S. has been under stiff scrutiny and in which people see the United States war in Iraq as a failure. The problem with the United States going into Iran and attacking them is the U.S. knows Iran doesn’t have nukes yet. Attacking a country to prevent them from proliferation (make and selling of nuclear weapons) is not acceptable. Vice President Dick Chaney says, “The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.” I agree that Iran should not be allowed to proliferate because it would be a violation of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty); however, the United States has mistakenly failed in another country in the Middle-East and doing so again will ruin the reputation and superiority of the United States.
“The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat. A perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat,” says Scott Sagan, Professor of political science and director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. By simply telling Iran we will not strike them and will defend against any other country that might attack them is a sure way to make Iran know there is no need for them to proliferate. However, it does not help that the United States is sending a message to Iran that the U.S. and other countries will attack if they continue the route to proliferation. Vice President Cheney says, “If Iran continues on its current course, the U.S. and other nations are ‘prepared to impose serious consequences.’”
I propose that the United States guarantee the safety of Iran and their people by offering a security guarantee. The guarantee will provide Iran with the knowledge that they will no longer need to feel threatened by the United States and therefore will not need to proliferate. The biggest concern should be trying to avoid another costly and deadly war. Is attacking Iran going to be worth it?
Unfortunately, the act of going into a country forcefully and finding nuclear weapons has been a failure for the United States. Need I remind you of the Iraqi War? The United States went into Iraq to take out nuclear weapons which didn’t even exist. Ever since then, the U.S. has been under stiff scrutiny and in which people see the United States war in Iraq as a failure. The problem with the United States going into Iran and attacking them is the U.S. knows Iran doesn’t have nukes yet. Attacking a country to prevent them from proliferation (make and selling of nuclear weapons) is not acceptable. Vice President Dick Chaney says, “The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.” I agree that Iran should not be allowed to proliferate because it would be a violation of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty); however, the United States has mistakenly failed in another country in the Middle-East and doing so again will ruin the reputation and superiority of the United States.
“The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat. A perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat,” says Scott Sagan, Professor of political science and director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. By simply telling Iran we will not strike them and will defend against any other country that might attack them is a sure way to make Iran know there is no need for them to proliferate. However, it does not help that the United States is sending a message to Iran that the U.S. and other countries will attack if they continue the route to proliferation. Vice President Cheney says, “If Iran continues on its current course, the U.S. and other nations are ‘prepared to impose serious consequences.’”
I propose that the United States guarantee the safety of Iran and their people by offering a security guarantee. The guarantee will provide Iran with the knowledge that they will no longer need to feel threatened by the United States and therefore will not need to proliferate. The biggest concern should be trying to avoid another costly and deadly war. Is attacking Iran going to be worth it?
Iran and World War III
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Dick Cheney said in reference to the current nuclear technology in Iran. In response to the United States’ accusations of secretly developing nuclear weapons, Iran says that its development of such technology is for peaceful purposes, as well as generating electricity. However, it is believed that Iran is doubling its efforts to produce nuclear weapons and has become more radical under the leadership of the president of the country – Mr. Ahmadinejad. Under his leadership, Iran has rebelled twice against the United Nations Security Council and has quickened its progress of developing uranium.
In reaction to the Iranian threat, President Bush warns Iran that their development of nuclear weapons could lead to World War III. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have openly said that Iran having nuclear weapons is “not acceptable,” and have changed their opinions demanding Iran to destroy their weapons, saying that the United States will not “allow” Iran to possess them. President Bush has been trying to coerce other world powers to help stop Iran’s progression of developing nuclear weapons. Military action has been threatened, but public officials insist upon negotiating and imposing economic sanctions on Iran before they deploy troops to Iran. These economic sanctions mean that “no U.S. citizen or private organization will be allowed to engage in financial transactions with these persons and entities," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
President Bush hopes that the sanctions placed on Iran and the burden of isolation will deter Iran from its continued progress in developing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Iran does not realize the magnitude of its isolation, and Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad, scorned the sanction imposed by the United Nations Security Council, calling the sanctions “worthless papers.” He furthers his argument by saying that the sanction has “no value,” will hold “no effect on the will of the Iranian nation,” and says that Iran will become more self-reliant because of the sanction placed upon the country.
If these economic sanctions do not deter Iran from further progress on the completion of nuclear weapons, the United States has threatened to deploy troops to Iraq. However, I wonder how many troops are left in the United States to be deployed. If the military is needed in Iran, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, says that there is “more than enough reserve to respond.” At the beginning of the war with Iraq, there were about 130,000 soldiers and marines. At the end of 2003, the number of soldiers lessened to approximately 50,000. However, by March 1, 2006, the number increased to 133,000. Currently in Iraq, there are about 168,000 soldiers. Do we really need to deploy any more soldiers? I honestly don’t think America can handle another war. There are many American protestors against the current war and fighting two wars at once does not seem plausible at the current time.
In reaction to the Iranian threat, President Bush warns Iran that their development of nuclear weapons could lead to World War III. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have openly said that Iran having nuclear weapons is “not acceptable,” and have changed their opinions demanding Iran to destroy their weapons, saying that the United States will not “allow” Iran to possess them. President Bush has been trying to coerce other world powers to help stop Iran’s progression of developing nuclear weapons. Military action has been threatened, but public officials insist upon negotiating and imposing economic sanctions on Iran before they deploy troops to Iran. These economic sanctions mean that “no U.S. citizen or private organization will be allowed to engage in financial transactions with these persons and entities," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
President Bush hopes that the sanctions placed on Iran and the burden of isolation will deter Iran from its continued progress in developing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Iran does not realize the magnitude of its isolation, and Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad, scorned the sanction imposed by the United Nations Security Council, calling the sanctions “worthless papers.” He furthers his argument by saying that the sanction has “no value,” will hold “no effect on the will of the Iranian nation,” and says that Iran will become more self-reliant because of the sanction placed upon the country.
If these economic sanctions do not deter Iran from further progress on the completion of nuclear weapons, the United States has threatened to deploy troops to Iraq. However, I wonder how many troops are left in the United States to be deployed. If the military is needed in Iran, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, says that there is “more than enough reserve to respond.” At the beginning of the war with Iraq, there were about 130,000 soldiers and marines. At the end of 2003, the number of soldiers lessened to approximately 50,000. However, by March 1, 2006, the number increased to 133,000. Currently in Iraq, there are about 168,000 soldiers. Do we really need to deploy any more soldiers? I honestly don’t think America can handle another war. There are many American protestors against the current war and fighting two wars at once does not seem plausible at the current time.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Assignment Due Friday, October 26
Should the United States attack Iran? Research the topic, state your opinion clearly, and justify your answer. Remember to write a compelling lead and end strong. Use transition techniques to make your middle move. Attribute where appropriate.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Halloween and Satanism
After researching the origin of Halloween and its connection to Christianity, I was surprised to find that some Christians, even a Bishop, believe that Halloween is related to Satanism. Dating back to the first century, Halloween was originally named “Samhain” and celebrated by Celts. On October 31, the Celts believed that spirits could cross the boundary from the world of the dead to the living. The Celtic priests, also known as Druids, erected sacred bonfires to burn crops and make animal sacrifices to the Celtic deities. During this celebration, the Celts wore costumes, usually consisting of animal skins and heads. Around A.D. 43, when the Romans conquered Celtic territory, two Roman celebrations were combined with Samhain. The two celebrations included Feralia, which honored the dead, and the second honoring the Roman goddess of fruit and trees, Pomona. In the seventh century, the Celtic lands were influenced by the beliefs of Christianity. All-hallows Eve was the new name given to October 31st, introduced by Pope Boniface IV. He also named November 1st as All Saint’s Day, which honored saints and martyrs. Later, the church designated November 2nd as “All Souls Day,” which honored the dead. All-hallows Eve was celebrated very much like Samhain, with bonfires and costumes. The celebrations combined were later known as Hallowmas.
As mentioned earlier, since the origin of Halloween involves Christian celebrations, why do some Christians believe that Halloween is considered Satanic? For example, Bishop Kyrill claims that any participation by members of the Orthodox Church in Halloween is a “genuine betrayal of our God and our holy Faith.” Why? Apparently, because those who acknowledge Halloween are spiritually indifferent, which are the “spiritual roots of atheism and the turning away from God.” He continues, saying that since atheists do not believe in God, they see Halloween as being harmless, ignoring its “obvious pagan and idolatrous origin…and demonic practices.” As an atheist, I personally do not understand why Kyrill is comparing atheists with Satanism and “demonic practices.”
Another group that considers Halloween to be Satanic includes that of the Bible Baptist Church. One member wrote an article for a pamphlet that the church prints, entitled “Should Christians Observe Halloween?” After reading his article, I concluded that the answer to the title would be a definite ‘no.’ This pamphlet, written by James Melton, asks questions to get his point across and backs up these questions with random verses from the Bible. For example, one point that is apparent throughout the pamphlet includes his incredulousness about why a “God-fearing Christian” would want to “dress-up their child like something that God hates… like an evil spirit?” He also says that while many think that Halloween is about having fun, in reality “it represents paganism, Satanism, human sacrifice, torture, rape, murder, idolatry, witchcraft, and spiritualism!” As an ending, Melton encourages skipping Halloween altogether, if you are a “‘true’ follower of Jesus Christ.”
If the above religious fanatics hate Halloween so much, then they need to keep their opinions to themselves. Children need to be able to have fun; they should not be concerned about Satanism or that imminent death is upon them because of axe-murderers.
As mentioned earlier, since the origin of Halloween involves Christian celebrations, why do some Christians believe that Halloween is considered Satanic? For example, Bishop Kyrill claims that any participation by members of the Orthodox Church in Halloween is a “genuine betrayal of our God and our holy Faith.” Why? Apparently, because those who acknowledge Halloween are spiritually indifferent, which are the “spiritual roots of atheism and the turning away from God.” He continues, saying that since atheists do not believe in God, they see Halloween as being harmless, ignoring its “obvious pagan and idolatrous origin…and demonic practices.” As an atheist, I personally do not understand why Kyrill is comparing atheists with Satanism and “demonic practices.”
Another group that considers Halloween to be Satanic includes that of the Bible Baptist Church. One member wrote an article for a pamphlet that the church prints, entitled “Should Christians Observe Halloween?” After reading his article, I concluded that the answer to the title would be a definite ‘no.’ This pamphlet, written by James Melton, asks questions to get his point across and backs up these questions with random verses from the Bible. For example, one point that is apparent throughout the pamphlet includes his incredulousness about why a “God-fearing Christian” would want to “dress-up their child like something that God hates… like an evil spirit?” He also says that while many think that Halloween is about having fun, in reality “it represents paganism, Satanism, human sacrifice, torture, rape, murder, idolatry, witchcraft, and spiritualism!” As an ending, Melton encourages skipping Halloween altogether, if you are a “‘true’ follower of Jesus Christ.”
If the above religious fanatics hate Halloween so much, then they need to keep their opinions to themselves. Children need to be able to have fun; they should not be concerned about Satanism or that imminent death is upon them because of axe-murderers.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Dark Forces and Pink Power Rangers
Halloween may have originated from European religious traditions, but to most Americans it is nothing more than an autumn celebration. A late night on the town, full of costumes and candy brings happiness to children and teenagers alike. October 31st is a day set aside each year for trick or treating and apple bobbing, not for Satan and the resurrection of evil spirits.
These evil spirits do not overtake the innocence of young children, even if the day evolved from “All Hallows Eve.” By dressing up in costumes resembling Satan or that of the “dark” side, children have no intentions of being satanic. It is the one day of the year where they can become whatever they wish to become. By dressing as a devil, a vampire, or a ghost, kids only aim to frighten friends and family.
As children grow into their teenage years, they seem to reach the rebellious stage of their life. Their costumes only reflect their raging hormones and emotions. Often times, teenage girls will dress exotic and sexy, but much of this is only done for attention. In my opinion, these costumes are just a way of turning heads, in a room full of teenage boys.
Mark Hoban, a freshman at Piedmont says, “The majority of the people that participate in Halloween are only looking to have a good time. The small percentages of those who don’t feel this way have no bearing on the overall image of the holiday.” Halloween has become more and more commercialized every year, making the holiday what it is today: a harmless night of fun.
Centuries ago, Halloween may have had a malicious and satanic connotation, but over time, it has become just another commercial holiday. For instance, the origins of Christmas came from St. Nicholas’s generosities to those less fortunate families. Today, children look at Christmas as a way of receiving a special toy they have longed for throughout the year. This is primarily due in part to the business world, where every store looks at it as an opportunity to turn a major profit. Easter marked the resurrection of Christ, but due to this commercialization, children believe Easter is about Peter Cottontail and baskets full of candy eggs. Commercialization has transformed the original meaning of Halloween and other holidays, altering the perspectives of society.
Of course there is a small minority of Americans who feel the spirits overtake them on this cool October night; however, when the candy is counted, and the make-up is removed, people return to their ordinary lives. Most of the American culture believes it is just a day of expression, and as a result, very seldom do we see extreme acts of evil, resembling works of the devil.
These evil spirits do not overtake the innocence of young children, even if the day evolved from “All Hallows Eve.” By dressing up in costumes resembling Satan or that of the “dark” side, children have no intentions of being satanic. It is the one day of the year where they can become whatever they wish to become. By dressing as a devil, a vampire, or a ghost, kids only aim to frighten friends and family.
As children grow into their teenage years, they seem to reach the rebellious stage of their life. Their costumes only reflect their raging hormones and emotions. Often times, teenage girls will dress exotic and sexy, but much of this is only done for attention. In my opinion, these costumes are just a way of turning heads, in a room full of teenage boys.
Mark Hoban, a freshman at Piedmont says, “The majority of the people that participate in Halloween are only looking to have a good time. The small percentages of those who don’t feel this way have no bearing on the overall image of the holiday.” Halloween has become more and more commercialized every year, making the holiday what it is today: a harmless night of fun.
Centuries ago, Halloween may have had a malicious and satanic connotation, but over time, it has become just another commercial holiday. For instance, the origins of Christmas came from St. Nicholas’s generosities to those less fortunate families. Today, children look at Christmas as a way of receiving a special toy they have longed for throughout the year. This is primarily due in part to the business world, where every store looks at it as an opportunity to turn a major profit. Easter marked the resurrection of Christ, but due to this commercialization, children believe Easter is about Peter Cottontail and baskets full of candy eggs. Commercialization has transformed the original meaning of Halloween and other holidays, altering the perspectives of society.
Of course there is a small minority of Americans who feel the spirits overtake them on this cool October night; however, when the candy is counted, and the make-up is removed, people return to their ordinary lives. Most of the American culture believes it is just a day of expression, and as a result, very seldom do we see extreme acts of evil, resembling works of the devil.
Halloween, Halloween
Halloween, the holiday that falls on the last day in October, is a day of fun for adults and children alike.
"My family always encouraged trick-or-treating," said Nathan Dean, a freshman at Piedmont College. "Halloween was the only day that we were allowed to get so much candy at one time."
Dean, along with thousands of others throughout the country, dress up in costumes every Halloween and go door to door asking for candy. Also, costume parties, hay rides, and fake haunted houses are created to celebrate the holiday.
"Costumes make up over half of the fun," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman.
There are those who do not celebrate the holiday. According to Kerby Anderson, a founder of a Christian website, Halloween is a holiday that should not be celebrated. He believes that celebrating Halloween glorifies and promotes witchcraft and divination.
April Myers, a mother of two, does not allow her children to celebrate Halloween by trick-or-treating. "It isn't as safe as it use to be," said Myers. "It's never okay to take candy from a stranger."
Halloween originated as a Celtic practice. The Celts believed that on the last day of their year, which would now be the last day in October, ghosts of the dead returned to Earth. They believed the ghosts damaged their crops and caused damage throughout their lands. They also believed that the presence of ghosts helped druids, or Celtic priests, predict the future.
To celebrate, the Celts built bonfires and sacrificed animals. They wore costumes to the celebration, many of which were created from animal bones and skins. The Celts also tried to tell each other's fortunes.
In today's time, Halloween is not about sacrificing animals. This religious practice developed by the Celts is now only a tradition.
I believe it is perfectly fine for anyone to celebrate Halloween. When children dress up like witches, ghouls, and goblins, their intentions are not to praise Satan. They simply want to have innocent fun in a spooky environment.
And as for the candy, if you are worried about your children getting poisoned, then take the time sort through each piece individually to check for anything suspicious.
"My family always encouraged trick-or-treating," said Nathan Dean, a freshman at Piedmont College. "Halloween was the only day that we were allowed to get so much candy at one time."
Dean, along with thousands of others throughout the country, dress up in costumes every Halloween and go door to door asking for candy. Also, costume parties, hay rides, and fake haunted houses are created to celebrate the holiday.
"Costumes make up over half of the fun," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman.
There are those who do not celebrate the holiday. According to Kerby Anderson, a founder of a Christian website, Halloween is a holiday that should not be celebrated. He believes that celebrating Halloween glorifies and promotes witchcraft and divination.
April Myers, a mother of two, does not allow her children to celebrate Halloween by trick-or-treating. "It isn't as safe as it use to be," said Myers. "It's never okay to take candy from a stranger."
Halloween originated as a Celtic practice. The Celts believed that on the last day of their year, which would now be the last day in October, ghosts of the dead returned to Earth. They believed the ghosts damaged their crops and caused damage throughout their lands. They also believed that the presence of ghosts helped druids, or Celtic priests, predict the future.
To celebrate, the Celts built bonfires and sacrificed animals. They wore costumes to the celebration, many of which were created from animal bones and skins. The Celts also tried to tell each other's fortunes.
In today's time, Halloween is not about sacrificing animals. This religious practice developed by the Celts is now only a tradition.
I believe it is perfectly fine for anyone to celebrate Halloween. When children dress up like witches, ghouls, and goblins, their intentions are not to praise Satan. They simply want to have innocent fun in a spooky environment.
And as for the candy, if you are worried about your children getting poisoned, then take the time sort through each piece individually to check for anything suspicious.
Halloween: A day of fun!
Halloween has always been one of my favorite holidays. Not only do I get the chance to dress up in a costume and escape reality for a day, but I get all the free candy I want.
However, there is controversy surrounding this holiday. Those who disagree with Halloween tend to lean towards the notion that celebrating this holiday is satanic. I’m sure most who believe this also think the “Harry Potter” books are demonic.
I truly believe most parents don’t like Halloween, but not because they consider it satanic. They dislike it because their kids return on sugar highs from the candy, which can often last for days on end.
It is noticeable that the costumes have become more sexual than they were ten years ago. But what affect does this have on little children walking door to door. Those who are wearing the scantily clad costumes are more often than not older and at parties. These costumes have taken away from the innocence that Halloween represents.
Halloween is a chance for children to let their imaginations run wild. They can either buy a costume of their favorite superhero, or a ghostly ghoul, or even make their own. This allows kids to express themselves. Kids by nature are innocent. They don’t look at Halloween as a chance to celebrate the devil. They look at it as a day to have fun with friends and get free candy along the way.
Halloween is also known for producing one of the most used rhetorical questions of all time: Trick or Treat? If the question is taken literal then the children would egg and roll houses that didn’t give them candy. Needless to say, it is the innocence that allows the adults giving out candy not to fret if their house is going to get egged.
Although Halloween has seen some changes in the past few years, especially in the clothing department, it is still just a holiday for kids to dress up and have a good time.
However, there is controversy surrounding this holiday. Those who disagree with Halloween tend to lean towards the notion that celebrating this holiday is satanic. I’m sure most who believe this also think the “Harry Potter” books are demonic.
I truly believe most parents don’t like Halloween, but not because they consider it satanic. They dislike it because their kids return on sugar highs from the candy, which can often last for days on end.
It is noticeable that the costumes have become more sexual than they were ten years ago. But what affect does this have on little children walking door to door. Those who are wearing the scantily clad costumes are more often than not older and at parties. These costumes have taken away from the innocence that Halloween represents.
Halloween is a chance for children to let their imaginations run wild. They can either buy a costume of their favorite superhero, or a ghostly ghoul, or even make their own. This allows kids to express themselves. Kids by nature are innocent. They don’t look at Halloween as a chance to celebrate the devil. They look at it as a day to have fun with friends and get free candy along the way.
Halloween is also known for producing one of the most used rhetorical questions of all time: Trick or Treat? If the question is taken literal then the children would egg and roll houses that didn’t give them candy. Needless to say, it is the innocence that allows the adults giving out candy not to fret if their house is going to get egged.
Although Halloween has seen some changes in the past few years, especially in the clothing department, it is still just a holiday for kids to dress up and have a good time.
Innocent fun, not evil
What is all the speculation of Halloween about? Halloween is supposed to be a day children get the opportunity to dress up in fictional characters and indulge themselves in enormous amounts of candy. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, on October 31st, Halloween is celebrated in the United States, Canada, and the British Isles by children going door to door while wearing costumes and begging for treats and playing pranks. I do not understand why issues such as religion have to be connected to this celebration. Children all over the world see this as a fun day where they can get loads of free candy. The children are the future of our world and as long as they see Halloween as something fun and rewarding, then why must we fill their heads with views that it is satanic to celebrate. I grew up loving to celebrate Halloween purely for the enjoyment of taking my sister, who was little at the time, door to door trick-or-treating and watching her little face brighten up with joy as she saw all those suckers and tootsie rolls poured into her little pumpkin. The innocence of this annual celebration is being destroyed as people bring satanic views into something that doesn’t deserve scrutiny. For me, a college student, I have lost the interest of Halloween because of the constant comparison of Satan and Halloween. In the United States Halloween has become the sixth most profitable holiday (after Christmas, Mother's Day, Valentines Day, Easter, and Father's Day). What this tells me is, Halloween is a success day and people enjoy celebrating it every year. So quit making excuses as to why we shouldn’t celebrate it and why it is so dangerous. Over the past decade, I have dressed up as a wizard, ghost, Batman, Freddy Krueger and recently have mocked “V” from the movie, V for Vendetta. Should I consider myself a satanic symbol? No. It is the innocence of the children we are destroying when we use reasons of Religion and Satan to disbar the celebration of Halloween. If a child does not know that Halloween’s origin is known as a night of power, when the veil that separates our world from the Otherworld is at its thinnest, as told by Stephen Wagner of Paranormal Phenomena; then why must we destroy their minds with the nonsense that can do nothing but destroy their innocence? |
Halloween
No trick. No treat. No thanks.
“We just didn’t celebrate Halloween,” says Piedmont sophomore, Becca Scruggs. “My family didn’t agree with the origins of the holiday. They considered it satanic.”
Rev. Ralph Fiorelli, pastor of the Bergenfield Assembly of God Church, is opposed to children trick-or-treating because of safety considerations and because it glorifies Satan.
"It's a day that's set aside for things of darkness...things that are supernatural. In reality, it has nothing to do with God," says Fiorelli.
The idea of Halloween being satanic is not surprising.
The tradition of Halloween dates back to the Irish Celts, who believed the day was when the worlds of the living and the dead became one.
Much has changed since those ancient times. Halloween has become a holiday of trick-or-treating, costume parties, and visits to hayrides and haunted houses.
Pop culture has even turned Halloween into a sexual event as girls’ costumes are becoming less modest and more revealing.
“Halloween is a holiday for college girls to dress promiscuous,” says Adam Perillo, an employee of
Looking back at what Halloween use to mean, I must confess it is different now.
The holiday use to be about who got the best candy and who had the coolest costume. Now it is about how scared or slutty we can make ourselves.
“Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it,” says the character Cady in the movie Mean Girls.
When it comes down to it, people have different beliefs and that’s fine. Halloween has unfortunately gone through certain changes, but I still look at it as a time where once a year, a kid can dress up and pretend for a night to be someone ore something else and get free candy. I mean after all, it was always about the candy.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Halloween: Due Wednesday, October 3
How do you feel about Halloween? What changes have you observed over the years in how the holiday is celebrated? How do you feel about those changes? Is Halloween all about children in silly and spooky costumes eating lots of candy, or is there a deeper meaning? Is it all innocent fun or is there a darker side? Remember to justify your opinions with research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)