Final Blog - A Reflection on EN221

     Numerous times throughout this semester in EN221, we have always come back to the topic, “What’s on the minds of the people today? What did the people from bygone years think about?” Before this class, I always thought America way back when was a completely different country. I thought that their ideals and morals and thoughts were the complete opposite of what we feel and think about in this day in time. I thought that the events that shaped the lives of the author’s from awhile back would have no relevance today and were just a thing of their time. As I reflect back on all the works we read from various authors and our in-class discussions, I realize that I was completely and utterly wrong. Many of the writers that were influential in the pre-Civil War era have just as much impact today as they did when they were alive. I’m extremely curious to see how they would react if they lived in today’s society and faced some of the things we are going through as well, but in a more developed world.

     For example, I realized that there is still a struggle for human rights. Authors like Harriet Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglass strived to tell the public their stories about slavery. They strived to encourage their audiences to fight for what was right so that the slaves could enjoy the same freedoms and rights as the white people. Fanny Fern wrote columns advocating for women’s rights and equality with men. And way before their time, there were newspapers that sought to give the Indians their rights to their own land, as they were being forced off their land and eventually almost extinguished.

     While reading those works, I connected those experiences and feelings to a group of people who are currently fighting for their rights and equality: the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. We supposedly live in a country where we are free, but that’s not true in some cases, particularly in the LGBT community.  They don't have the rights to marry whomever they choose, and they often get bullied and looked down upon by the rest of society.  We’re supposedly a country where one can come and live without being judged, but others who don’t agree with their views judge the LGBT community constantly. This judgement has even driven some people to their deaths because they didn’t want to deal with the pressure to be “normal” anymore. In a way, this situation could be related to that of the Indians and to the slaves. There are some who believe that the LGBT community should be extinguished. As I said in my first blog post:

“Many people in this nation don't like the fact that they want their rights to marriage and equality, just like the rest of the American population. They're being denied their rights, even though we're all equal. One could even go as far as to say that we're trying to do them like we once did the Indians...push them out of our population. The Indians were sent on the Trail of Tears, and soon began to die off. Now, only a few exist. Sooner or later, it might become the same way with the LGBT community if some change doesn't happen. Charles Worley, a North Carolina preacher, believes that all of the LGBT community should be fenced so that they can't reproduce and will die off. (View the video here.) Some big-time corporations, like Chik-Fil-A (which I'm sure most of you have heard about already) are even funding anti-gay organizations that are trying to make gay actions illegal and groups that feel as if the gay community should be exported out of America. If you're a supporter of Chick-Fil-A and aren't knowledgeable as to where their money is going, I strongly encourage you to read this article. What I concluded from the reading and this connection though, is that there's ALWAYS going to be some form of hate crimes going, regardless of the time, unless we make some serious changes and learn to accept everyone.”  

Picture that surfaced during the time of the Chick-fil-A uproar

     Now looking back, this same subject matter can also be applied to Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs. Jefferson, unlike most of the people in his time frame, had a completely different view on Christianity. Instead of following the stigma of Christianity, Jefferson believed that everyone should have the right to free inquiry. He said, “"Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced." He also told his own nephew: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." (Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, in PTJ 12:15.)” In my third blog post, I said:

“Jefferson's outlook on religion to me was more or less is: If you are believing in one God or multiple gods and it does no harm to me, then I don't care what you think. I have to agree with him on that one. If you aren't outside screaming and hollering in the middle of the night due to your religious views, I don't care what your religious views are and I'll still respect you.”

     This goes back to the LGBT community. I know in Christianity ideals that loving someone of the same sex or changing your gender would be considered a sin. I am a Christian myself and I don’t necessarily think it’s right, but I’m not going to look down upon someone or not love them because of who are they are and what their beliefs are. I feel like Jefferson’s theory should be applied in that situation. It doesn’t harm me or benefit me for someone to be in the LGBT community, and I feel like they should be able to have their own opinions and morals without being judged by me (or anyone for that matter.) I know a few people that are in that community, and I love them just the same as I do anyone else. All throughout the years when I’ve learned about Jefferson in history classes, I never really knew that side of him and how he felt about religion and just general morals and beliefs. But, I do have to say that I agree with him.

Protester of Chick-fil-A

      In today’s society, we also have a heightened concern about our appearances. In history books, I’ve always seen people that are just kind of…plain Jane looking. I didn’t really think they cared that much about their appearances, but mainly because they look nothing like we do. I also didn’t think that they had forms of plastic surgery, but alas, I was wrong there too. It became clear to me after reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Birthmark that people did care about their appearances back in the day and that they could be just as self-conscience about themselves as we are today. According to John Schlismann, Hawthorne's story is just a relevant today as it was when he wrote it. As I

said in my fifth blog post:

“In today’s society, Hawthorne’s theory of removing imperfections is still there, but it’s even more involved. Over time, doctors and scientists have developed new ways to fix our physical imperfections. But why? Why can't people just be happy with themselves? Instead, we are constantly trying to change the way we look. We dye our hair, we remove pimples, we use colored contacts, and some people even have plastic surgery to more permanently change one (or more) of their body parts.”

     Heidi Montag is a prime example of this. She changed herself so much that she looks like a completely different person. She got a lot of bad press about it from the media, as well as the public. Heidi underwent 10 (yes, TEN) plastic surgeries in one day, including Botox, a nose job, a brow lift, a chin reduction, fat injections in her cheeks and lips, a breast augmentation, liposuction in her waist and thighs, pinned back ears, a buttocks augmentation, and neck liposuction. ALL IN ONE DAY. I’m not really sure what her motivation or goal for this was, but it’s a shame that she changed herself that drastically. In the long run, it could possibly be a downfall for Heidi because surgeons still aren’t completely sure of the effects these surgeries will have in the long run. This is relatable to The Birthmark because in the end, Georgianna dies when Alymer tries to remove her imperfection. Schlismann says that, "When man tries to accomplish what he was not intended to accomplish, disaster will be the ultimate result."

Heidi Montag's progression of plastic surgeries

The story of imperfections can also be related to one of the more famous poems of Emily Dickinson. It goes like this:

I'm nobody! Who are you?

Are you nobody, too?

Then there's a pair of us--don't tell!

They'd banish us, you know.

 How dreary to be somebody!

How public, like a frog

To tell your name the livelong day

To an admiring bog!

Dickinson’s poem relates to the imperfection issues in a sense that she satirizes the public for thinking too highly of themselves and for creating social groups that are very distinguished for one another. Social status could be a part of the reason why people wish to change themselves so drastically, even if it’s their physical appearance. We all want to conform to what the “somebodies” are doing, rather than focusing on ourselves individually as a “nobody.”  As I said in my eighth blog post:

 “To me, Dickinson is saying that someone who honestly identifies themselves and has an "identity" is a nobody in society's eyes unless they have some kind of social status. To be "somebody" in society, one must have status in society and must be well known amongst others. A "somebody" is one who has admirers that can just admire a person for whom they THINK they are, but they may not really know that person. Take celebrities, for instance. We all have some sort of celebrity that we love (or think we love). We care about their every move, and we think they're the greatest person that ever lived. We just perceive them to be "somebody" because their name is spread around a lot and they have a status within our society. But, we don't really personally know them and we are considered a "nobody" to them because they have no clue who we are because we're just one in a million of their fanbase. In stanza 2, Dickinson calls the admiring person a "bog." A bog is a piece of wet, spongy ground. She could be implying that the admiring person soaks in everything the "somebody" says or does like a sponge. She might be suggesting that they could take on the personality of their admired person, and would not have their own true identity because they're so influenced by the "somebody." She says it is dreary to be a somebody, because you don't really know your true self because you're so concerned with who you think you are based on the opinions of others.”

Instead of being proud of who we are and embracing our imperfections, we strive so much to change what’s on the outside, and even the inside, just to conform and be accepted. 

     Another thing I realized as this semester passed is that even a long time ago, people still loved stories that weren’t real. After reading Rip Van Winkle, we had a class discussion about why people love fiction. We talked about Harry Potter, Transformers, Jaws, etc. We came to the conclusion that these fictional stories have deeper meanings than what's seen. They aren't just about the wizards, robot cars, and a big shark.

We determined that the underlying meaning reflects what society is thinking about at the current time of production. Although this is true, there's another detail that we missed in class. Fictional stories not only teach us about things that don't exist, but they teach us about ourselves as real human beings. Psychologist Keith Oatley says, "They train us in the art of being human." He says that we tend to think of watching movies as being a passive activity, but that thought is not true when it comes to our emotions. When we're watching a movie, we have empathy for the characters, and we can relate to them. If the writing or movie is powerful enough, we can feel the emotions of the characters as they are feeling them. Oatley says, "The feelings elicited by fiction go beyond the words on a page or the images on a screen." After we've read or watched a piece of fiction, we can oftentimes think about how they relate to our own lives. As I said in my fourth blog post:

“On the surface, Harry Potter seems like it's a movie solely about this magical wizarding world that doesn't actually exist. In reality, it's MUCH more than that. Harry Potter has themes about love, friendship, good and evil, and education. These are all themes that we can take to heart and use in our real lives. Joyce Pines, of the Kalamazoo Gazette, says, "It [Harry Potter] is a remarkable story that reminds us that, no matter what life throws at you, you must do what is right. They are a guide, presented in an entertaining format, to help us understand the difficulty of life's journey."  A memorable lesson from the series is love and knowing that love is something that will prevail for all time. Here's a clip from the last movie, Deathly Hallows: Part 2, that sums this up in a nutshell.”

So do we really read or watch fictional stories solely for the entertainment factor? Sometimes, yes. Oftentimes, no. We embrace fictional stories because of the impact they can have on our views on life and our emotions. Next time you're watching The Walking Dead, Firefly, or any other fictional story, try to go beyond the surface and think of what it really means, even if you have to go back a couple of decades. We can always learn new ideals and lessons from people, objects, and places that aren't actually on a real map. 

     Overall, even though I thought America was a totally different country back in the day, I was wrong. Throughout the semester, I realized that we still do think about subject matters that were written about years ago. Even though America has evolved and subject matters aren’t precisely the same, they are still relevant to what writers wanted to get across to their audiences decades before our time. Just like years ago, struggles for social equality, concern with appearances, and a love for fictional stories are still around.  

Blog #8 - I'm Nobody, Who Are You?

I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us--don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.

 How dreary to be somebody!

How public, like a frog

To tell your name the livelong day

To an admiring bog!

     Emily Dickinson's poem I'm Nobody, questioning who she, along with everyone else, is a very intriguing poem to me. I think this poem is a satire and criticizes society. (Maybe, society is the reason that Dickinson didn't get out of her home a lot...because she was known as recluse. But that's just my opinion, because I don't particularly like society either.) To me, she is saying that a nobody is really a somebody and someone who thinks they are somebody is really nobody (wow, that's confusing.)

     To me, Dickinson is saying that someone who honestly identifies themselves and has an "identity" is a nobody in society's eyes unless they have some kind of social status. To be "somebody" in society, one must have status in society and must be well known amongst others. A "somebody" is one who has admirers that can just admire a person for whom they THINK they are, but they may not really know that person. Take celebrities, for instance. We all have some sort of celebrity that we love (or think we love). We care about their every move, and we think they're the greatest person that ever lived. We just perceive them to be "somebody" because their name is spread around a lot and they have a status within our society. But, we don't really personally know them and we are considered a "nobody" to them because they have no clue who we are because we're just one in a million of their fanbase.

    In stanza 2, Dickinson calls the admiring person a "bog." A bog is a piece of wet, spongy ground. She could be implying that the admiring person soaks in everything the "somebody" says or does like a sponge. She might be suggesting that they could take on the personality of their admired person, and would not have their own true identity because they're so influenced by the "somebody." She says it is dreary to be a somebody, because you don't really know your true self because you're so concerned with who you think you are based on the opinions of others.

     Cummings says:

I'm Nobody! Who Are You?” presents the theme that it is better to be a humble nobody than a proud somebody. After all, somebodies have to spend their time maintaining their status by telling the world how great they are. How boring!

     I wonder what Dickinson would think about today's society because we put so much emphasis on celebrities and public figures. We even have tv shows and magazines dedicated to finding out about the lives of such people, such as Entertainment Tonight and People magazine. We care so much about knowing about the lives of others, that sometimes we may not take the time to examine our own lives and who we are as a person. A lot of us strive to be like the celebrities we see instead of just trying to be proud of who we really are. 

Blog #7 - Consciousness

     After reading Herman Melville's Bartleby the Scrivener, we had a class discussion about about consciousness. It prompted me to think, "Where does consciousness happen? Where does it come from? Are my thoughts real? Am I really seeing what I think I'm seeing?" 

     In my opinion, everyone views consciousness differently. Everyone looks at it from their very own perspective, they see what they see, and describe it. But in some cases, they may only be describing what they THINK they see, as opposed to what's really going on. Is consciousness abstract, or is it really a thing? For instance, objects are concrete things that can have a location. So what does this mean to be human and to have thoughts? Are our thoughts and what we perceive concrete things?  

     Steven Pinker, of Time magazine, says that consciousness does not depend on language or self-awareness. He says, "At times we have all lost ourselves in music, exercise or sensual pleasure, but that is different from being knocked out cold." So when we're knocked out cold, are we still conscious? To me, the answer is yes.

"Some kinds of information in the brain--such as the surfaces in front of you, your daydreams, your plans for the day, your pleasures and peeves--are conscious. You can ponder them, discuss them and let them guide your behavior. Other kinds, like the control of your heart rate, the rules that order the words as you speak and the sequence of muscle contractions that allow you to hold a pencil, are unconscious. They must be in the brain somewhere because you couldn't walk and talk and see without them, but they are sealed off from your planning and reasoning circuits, and you can't say a thing about them." -Steven Pinker

     Even while we're knocked out cold (knocked out meaning literally being knocked out, sleeping, or in a coma), we can still process thoughts and what other people are telling us. According to Pinker, Belgian and Russian scientists performed an experiment on a woman who had been involved in a car crash that was in a vegetative state. They asked her to perform various activities, such as imagining the rooms in her house or playing tennis. As they did so, the appropriate parts of her brain "lit up." Even though she was considered a vegetable, she still had glimmerings of consciousness and her brain scan was barely different from a healthy, active person's brain.  Our consciousness also happens in our sleep and we perceive it as dreams. Sometimes, our dreams can be so real to us that we wake up and have to wonder if it actually happened or not. I know that's happened to myself a couple of times, and it's a really strange sensation. Funny how the brain works, right?  

     Are we really in control of our own consciousness? Yes, and no. Although we might go through life thinking we can control our own awareness and consciousness, that's not really all true. While we can control some of our thoughts, certain things like brain surgeries and drugs can cause changes in the chemicals in our brain and cause us to perceive things that aren't really there. Pinker says, "...the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process outshouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along."


     I also find it interesting that we could consider optical illusions to be a part of consciousness, in a sense. Our eyes have ways of tricking us to make us believe that we are seeing something when we really aren't. Pinker says, "Ordinarily, our eyes flit from place to place, alighting on whichever object needs our attention on a need-to-know basis. This fools us into thinking that wall-to-wall detail was there all along--an example of how we overestimate the scope and power of our own consciousness." This could explain why people say they have seen UFOs and claim to have been kidnapped by "aliens." It could all be just in their mind, but their consciousness makes them think it's legitimately happening. 

     The brain works in strange ways... And in reality, we will probably never really know how or why the brain works the way it does. It's scary, really, to think about, how powerful the organ inside our head is. 



     

Blog #6 - Is America a "City On a Hill?"

     During our class discussion on some of Walt Whitman's Song of Myself poems, we had a discussion about what Whitman was trying to say about America and its morals. One question posed during our discussion was, "What is America?"

     But that question lead to me another question... Is America considered a "city on a hill?" Are the eyes of other countries upon us? Why or why not? President John F. Kennedy returned to that phrase during one of his speeches, but is it still true today? 

     Our country has had its fair share of problems, some of which led to wars. For the most part, we have overcome those predicaments. In World War I, we shed American blood on foreign soil. We did not go into World War II for personal gain, but to defend our beloved country. During the Cold War, we stepped in to help other countries become free and prosperous nations, like ourself. We, as Americans, are known for our pride and confidence in our country. We are known to help others not of our own nation, and we are known to be peaceful and God-fearing. But what can be said of those qualities today?

     I personally believe that our claim to be a "city on a hill" is no longer an accurate one. Here's a few reasons why: 

1. Prayer is being taken out of public schools. We've always been a country of free religion, but if we can't practice our religion in schools, then are we really free to worship when and wherever we please? 
2. A good portion of our country is against equality for all. We claim to be a country where you can be who you want to be and that everyone has equal rights, but that's not so either. So many people in the LGBT still don't have rights to marriage and are tortured and looked down upon.
3. Our country is divided. That was evident in the most recent presidential election. Our country is split right down the middle when it comes to party platforms. If our country is so divided, then how can we be united? When almost half the country is red and half is blue, how do we meet in the middle from here? 
4. After the results of the election this year, many people posted on Twitter or Facebook that they were going to leave the country. What kind of pride is that? People are becoming disappointed in their own country. If so many people are willing to get up and leave because of the man in office, then how can they claim to be Americans? 

     Those are only a few examples. As author Bill Kneer puts it, our country should really be called "America - The Decaying City Upon a Hill." Eyes are still upon our nation, but not in a good way. Hopefully in time, we as a UNITED nation can overcome these differences and come out stronger, just like we always have in the past. 

Blog #5 - The Birthmark

     Last week in class, we read The Birthmark by Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Birthmark is a story about a man named Aylmer and his wife, Georgiana. Aylmer is a scientist, and he is married to one of the most beautiful women who could, in a sense, be deemed as perfect. But to Aylmer, she is very much NOT perfect because of a birthmark that's on her cheek. The birthmark appears to be in the shape of a little hand, and shows up severely when Georgiana shows certain emotions. Over time, Aylmer cannot deal with the birthmark. Georgiana had always been alright with the mark and was shocked when Aylmer wished to remove it. Eventually, Georgiana could not stand the thought of the mark being on her cheek and decides to let Aylmer try his hand at removing it. Aylmer succeeds in removing the mark, but it kills Georgiana.

     In today's society, this theory of removing imperfections is still there and is even more involved. Over time, doctors and scientists have developed new ways to fix our physical imperfections. But why? Why can't people just be happy with themselves? Instead, we are constantly trying to change the way we look. We dye our hair, we remove pimples, we use colored contacts, and some people even have plastic surgery to more permanently change one (or more) of their body parts.

     For instance, let's take a look at Heidi Montag. She's undergone a ridiculous amount of plastic surgeries over the years and has been in the public spotlight for it. Here's Heidi's transition: 

     In 2006, Heidi looked perfectly normal. At least in my opinion she did. In 2011, she was barely recognizable as the person she was in 2006. I'm not exactly sure why she wanted all of these changes or who might have possessed her to make these changes. But as far as I'm concerned, Heidi Montag is a perfect example of the message Hawthorne was trying to make.

     According to John Schlismann, Hawthorne's story is just a relevant today as it was when he wrote it. We have been doing everything in our power to change the ways of Mother Nature and we do not like to fully accept who we are. Schlismann says that, "When man tries to accomplish what he was not intended to accomplish, disaster will be the ultimate result." This is true in the case of Heidi Montag. By changing herself drastically and not embracing who she was, she got a lot of crap from the media. The media's comments could have potentially damaged her reputation and the way she thinks about herself. Schlismann also says:

"This goes back to what makes us who we are; we are not pure flesh and blood, our psyches and our true selves go so much further beyond that. Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story The Birth Mark touches on philosophical and ethical issues valid in his time, as well as ours. His work makes us think about what is perfection and is it desirable in the physical state. In the end we discover that if we overstep our bounds and try to make perfect that which is imperfect, death will be the final result, for only in death through God, can we achieve perfection."

     Regardless of what changes we make in relation to our physical appearances, we are still the same person on the inside. Changes on the outside do not affect what's at our core. In the words of Lady Gaga, "There's nothing wrong with loving who you are, she said 'Cause He made you perfect.'" But unfortunately some people must change themselves on the outside in able to do that and think they are perfect.

     And on that note, I'll leave you all with this:

Blog #4 - Why Do We Read/Watch Fiction?

     One day in class, we read Rip Van Winkle by Washington Irving. Mostly everyone knows the story of Rip. He was the man that fell asleep and woke up 20 years later and everything had changed. Naturally, this is most likely not a true story. But if it's not a true story, then why do we read it? 

     In class, we discussed why we read or watch fictional stories. We talked about Harry Potter, Transformers, Jaws, etc. We came to the conclusion that these fictional stories have deeper meanings than what's seen. They aren't just about the wizards, robot cars, and a big shark. We determined that the underlying meaning reflects what society is thinking about at the current time of production. Although this is true, there's another detail that we missed in class.

     Fictional stories not only teach us about things that don't exist, but they teach us about ourselves as real human beings. Psychologist Keith Oatley says, "They train us in the art of being human." He says that we tend to think of watching movies as being a passive activity, but that thought is not true when it comes to our emotions. When we're watching a movie, we have empathy for the characters, and we can relate to them. If the writing or movie is powerful enough, we can feel the emotions of the characters as they are feeling them. Oatley says, "The feelings elicited by fiction go beyond the words on a page or the images on a screen." After we've read or watched a piece of fiction, we can oftentimes think about how they relate to our own lives.

     For instance, let's go back to Harry Potter. On the surface, Harry Potter seems like it's a movie solely about this magical wizarding world that doesn't actually exist. In reality, it's MUCH more than that. Harry Potter has themes about love, friendship, good and evil, and education. These are all themes that we can take to heart and use in our real lives. Joyce Pines, of the Kalamazoo Gazette, says, "It [Harry Potter] is a remarkable story that reminds us that, no matter what life throws at you, you must do what is right. They are a guide, presented in an entertaining format, to help us understand the difficulty of life's journey."  A memorable lesson from the series is love and knowing that love is something that will prevail for all time. Here's a clip from the last movie, Deathly Hallows: Part 2, that sums this up in a nutshell. (ALERT! This clip is a spoiler if you haven't read or watched Deathly Hallows. It also might make you cry if you're a sap like me.) 

     So do we really read or watch fictional stories solely for the entertainment factor? Sometimes, yes. Oftentimes, no. We embrace fictional stories because of the impact they can have on our views on life and our emotions. Next time you're watching The Walking Dead, Firefly, or any other fictional story, go beyond the surface and think of what it really means, even if you have to go back a couple of decades. We can always learn new ideals and lessons from people, objects, and places that aren't actually on a real map. 

Blog #3 - Thomas Jefferson and Free Inquiry

    When I first began reading Thomas Jefferson's writings, I didn't really think they'd be all that interesting. But as I progressed, I found that he's quite the intriguing person. The section on religion from "Notes On the State Of Virginia" particularly interested me.

    Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers of our country, (which is supposedly "One nation under God" according to the Pledge of Allegiance) was often accused of being an Atheist. An Atheist, you say? Yes. He was often accused of being an Atheist during the party conflicts between the Republicans and the Federalists in the latter part of the 1790s (Jefferson's Religious Beliefs). This is probably because he had a different view on Christianity and felt like one should have the right to free inquiry. 

    Jefferson rarely ever commented on his own religious beliefs, but more or less commented on how he felt about everyone else's religious beliefs. He believed that everyone should have the right to free inquiry, and he states in the religion section of "Notes On the State Of Viriginia" that "Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced." He also told his own nephew:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." (Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, in PTJ 12:15.)

   Jefferson did attempt to search for his own religion, but he did not follow that exactly of Christianity. He believed in a Supreme Being, but he rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ (Jefferson's Religious Beliefs). He also said to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am a sect by myself, as far as I know."

I also find it interesting although he didn't really believe in Christianity, Jefferson still attended church on a regular basis and donated to various local churches "out of respect for public worship" (Smith, First Forty Years, 13). 

Jefferson's outlook on religion to me was more or less is: If you are believing in one God or multiple gods and it does no harm to me, then I don't care what you think. I have to agree with him on that one. If you aren't outside screaming and hollering in the middle of the night due to your religious views, I don't care what your religious views are and I'll still respect you. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just...