The Quarantine Policy: Preventing Ebola or Hurting Individual Right?

Ebola become a big issue in our society since it starts to outbreak to region to region in West Africa. Ebola even gives more attention in our public when Ebola starts to spread out in Dallas of Texas by Thomas Eric Duncan, who came back to Dallas from Liberia with symptom of Ebola.  When Duncan’s stories were spreading all over in the Media, American people started to see Ebola as more serious problems, and some schools were closed in Dallas of Texas in the beginning of October. Unfortunately, Ebola is still under development; therefore, we still don't have a cure for Ebola.

By this circumstance, Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) added their policy that people should be isolated for 21 days, who have contacted with Ebola patients or went to West Africa.

However, one of articles called "Threat of Lawsuit Could Test Maine's Quarantine Policy" accords that Kaci Hickox , a nurse who went to Sierra Leone for treating Ebola patients, sued the Maine Quarantine Policy, which is require that anybody that has had direct exposure to Ebola must do a home quarantine, but Kaci Kickox says that it is violated individual right and reported that it is stigmatization and it is not based on science or evidence to isolate her under Quarantine, and the best thing to keep these people are not watching on them in institution if they have symptoms, but it is self-monitoring.


While I was researching about this articles, I don’t totally disagree with Kaci Hickox that this Quarantine policy is somewhat violating individual right. She might have expected people to treat her better than her current situation, because she has been with Ebola patients which shows that she is very brave person, and I want to give her a big applause base on this fact. 

However, I believe that she should understand about this circumstance better than anyone, especially because she is a nurse. I believe that nurse is not only person to treat patients, but they also have great responsibility to take care of those diseases not to be transmitted to others. 

I believe no one probably can make this case as this larger spotlight, but the reason to grow this larger  because I believe that she is a nurse, which it seems that she believes herself that she is knowing more medical knowledge than other people who enforced her to be isolated for 21 days.

Again, I can see that it must be very frustrated for her to be alone and not allowed to see her family and boyfriend, but it seems that she is being selfish because I feel her pride when she was saying " no science and evidence" which looks like she is using her title, nurse, to confront to people for protecting her individual right.

Whether gays are acceptable in Catholic society

On Thursday, October 16, 2014, americablog published an article titled Facing conservative backlash, Pope no longer “welcomes” gays.

This article gave me an attention because the Pope has announced that gay people could be accepted as brothers and sisters in the Catholic society IF they accept the Lord and have good will.

The author, John Aravosis who is an American Democratic political consultant, writer, attorney, and gay activist, excitedly reports about Pope’s announcement for accepting gays in their society in his previous article; however, the author seems upset and very disappoints in Pope for changing his word due to conservative’s oppose. The author reports that Catholics’ insistence that the Pope is infallible which means Pope can’t be wrong.

I agree with the author in some way where he reports that Catholic people insist that Pope is infallible because people believe that Pope is the most person that further from the sin in the world; therefore, believers are totally impossible to believe that Pope is accepting gays in the Catholic society. But I believe that people are not insisting Pope to be infallible, but they have taught to believed in Pope to be infallible because Pope represent as a holy father.

I can see why the author irritates about this circumstance and upset with Pope because the author says that Pope is taking his statement back by people’s complaining even though Pope believes himself that gays are acceptable in Catholic society. But in my personal opinion, it seems that Pope still remains an excuse to take his word back when he mentions that “IF gays accept the Lord”, which indicates that he still not quite sure about accepting gays in “our society”.

In my point of view, this kind of topic normally does not have answer to say who is right or wrong, but people should judge themselves with their moral system. I sometimes feel that Bible does not seem clear enough what is being really said and it sometimes truly misleads us. But no one can tell which meaning is the true or not because everyone interprets Bible in different ways (people normally interpret Bible by their circumstance).

I believe that some people might say that we need to change some of things from the Bible because it is only impossible to follow everything but it does not also apply in our generation. For instance, these days no one pay tithe with their  animal's leg. Some people argue that the tithe was very small amount of value in old generation, but it is too much for our generation, because some people suffer with  financial problem for paying the tithe in these days. Nevertheless, conservative people still say that God’s words are unchangeable, therefore we need to obey the Bible whatsoever. 

I agree with  the author that political pressure manipulates Pope because most people who have most power and money to control our society is conservative, but the author's argument does not look very sharp or persuasive in this situation because he emotionally approach to this case way too closely; he just seems like to spits out words to expose his anger through an article. 

No body really knows if  Pope could have interpreted the Bible in different way than others, or he might have wanted to embrace all human kinds within God, but it still gives
hard time for gays anyway. One thing I want to tell these people that it might takes for a while to accept them equally; however, the day will eventually come to see them equal just like our history that all women are allowed to vote in 1930s.

Be a "religious politician"

On Wednesday, October 1, 2012, USA Today published an article titled Can atheists be elected?

I found this article to be interesting because it argues that politicians should act real religious people rather than feigning to be a believer or religion to gain approval from the citizens.

First of all, when I saw the title of the article , I thought this article would argue about how religions are dominating the world, the affects within the government and how religion highly influence the citizens to select the candidates who believes in the same common religion as they do until I read the writer's background.

After reading this article I agree with the writer, Tom Kattenmaker who is a Portland-based writer specializing in religion in public life; he is the author of "Onward Christian Athletes" on Christianity in professional sports, because we see many cases where politicians are doing wrong for their own benefits, who had told to us that they are a believer on a specific topic but then show untruthful and become a hypocrite on the topic that they so called believed in because their religion.However, I feel that this article weigh more about religion which does not consider about the minority (atheists, etc.) and it can tend to make them uncomfortable while they are reading this article.

It is true that we currently have more people who practice religions than people who do not practice religion. Nevertheless, I believe that politicians should be honest and be truthful about themselves to citizens whether they practice religion or not.