Response to Roman Mirzakhanyan
Hello Roman, I support you in your discussion that from a separatism point of view, anyone can follow any religion they like, as long as they are separated from the other. In the modern world where people value money than anything else, including religion, individual’s right to behave in accordance with their faith is in danger of being violated (Rahim, 2017). For instance, employers are likely to order employees who are Seventh-Day Adventists to report to work on Saturday. Employees need to be members of trade unions so that the trade unions may champion the rights of their members, including the right to worship at a day of their choice according to their religious beliefs.
Reference
Rahim, H. M. F. A. (2017). The Making of American Islam and the Emergence of Western Islamic Intellectual Thought to Counter Violent Extremism: A Case Study of American Muslim Revivalist Imam WD Mohammed (Doctoral dissertation, Howard University).
Response to Maddison White
Hello Maddison, I agree with you in your discussion. According to the Anglo-conformist perspective of diversity, the Jainist would be ordered to abandon their religion since it is not American and would, therefore, start eating meat. Anglo-conformism is a way of assimilation since the Jainist will have to abide by the American tradition, even if it would mean violating their own tradition (Eck & Randall, 2018). As a result, the Jainist may develop health problems, for instance, due to consuming American meat. Therefore the Jainist right to behave in accordance with their faith would be violated. Americans need to modernize and allow other communities to practice their own beliefs.
Reference
Eck, D. L., & Randall, B. W. (2018). Pluralism in religion and American education. In The Oxford handbook of religion and American education (p. 43). Oxford University Press.
Response to Berlin Beltran
Hello Berlin, I concur with you in your discussion. You have given excellent examples to support the concept of animal testing and the ethical issues that have been of great concern. Mice and rats have life, and they would feel the same pain that a human being would feel, and therefore there is no need for torturing them. Animal testing is problematic because the selected animals receive a kind of inhumane treatment because some of the drugs may be harmful and may not significantly contribute to medical breakthroughs (Monamy, 2017). Scientists should use preserved animal tissues to test the efficacy of their drugs.
Reference
Monamy, V. (2017). Animal experimentation: A guide to the issues. Cambridge University Press.
Response to Luisa Rodriguez
Hello Luisa, I agree with you in your discussion that animal testing is cruel, and there is no experiment that is worth or effective enough to have to put all kinds of animals through pain and torture. Animal testing causes suffering of the involved animals and may result in their death. Less important is that, even if the animal survives the test may not prove to have significant essence to human beings. Scientists who have made immense breakthroughs in medical research have acknowledged that animal testing does not produce significant advancements in their tests and is just a waste of money (Monamy, 2017). Organizations should use preserved animal cells to test the effectiveness of their drugs and cosmetics.
Reference
Monamy, V. (2017). Animal experimentation: A guide to the issues. Cambridge University Press.