Calm down, it's a slogan

After considering the arguments, I feel that the t-shirts are playful and harmless. The problem at hand, are all of the die-hard Christians that take this kind of thing out of context, and blow it out of proportion. With these two different opinions aside, there is a middle ground. In fact, most of the people that wear these shirts are wearing it because it is funny, and because it was a new trend, not because they felt it would attack, or put shame on Christianity. And I believe that attacking Christianity doesn’t even come to mind when buying these t-shirts. As far as how the shirts effect my decision, I would say that they do not at all. The shirts don’t make me want to be more or less of a Christian.
Mitchell talks about the “Jesus is my Homeboy, Mary is my Homegirl” t-shirts and says “we could say that the previous examples are typical of culture that ignores god.” By saying this, Mitchell clearly is not for these kinds of t-shirts. But in all actuality, is God really being ignored. People have bought and are still buying them, which must stand for something considering Jesus is right on the front. If the shirts only contained text, I do not think it would have the same effect on the public eye. With the picture of Jesus on the front, it gives the viewer and even more fun-loving feeling. Take it a step further, and change the font from bubbly, to gothic lettering, and the entire way you used to view this shirt changes. With Gothic lettering, it could look as if the shirt was against Christianity.
This image of Jesus is loaded with rhetoric that could go both ways. The mere fact that he is holding up the words “Jesus is my Homeboy” constitutes that the makers are for Christianity. But after taking a deeper look into it, Jesus has an almost blank stare on his face, almost as if he is tired, and frustrated with what has gone on, maybe even with the making of these shirts. If you were to change this shirt color to black, it could also alter the shirts message. Black in general is looked at as dark and gothic, representing the devil in some cases. This means that even with the same lettering and photograph that you could look at the shirt as non –Christian.

Disqualification?...You be the Judge

My initial reactions to Kelly’s disqualification was that it was extremely unnecessary, and in some ways hurtful. Where I am from, religion is not really that big of a deal, but if there was ever a question of someone having to go against there religious beliefs, our administration made an exception. That is why I was taken aback by Kelly’s dq. As far as an argument on religious discrimination and Kelly’s situation, I believe that there is some discrimination going on. Kelly wore her headdress for over three years, and won numerous awards and records. So, I think a disqualification during her last year, was like a low blow. I would think if she had been disqualified from other races because of her headdress, that she would have taken the initiative and been more careful before her invitational. But she never was, and even though it was said that she had been warned before hand, she never got in trouble for it, and wore it again. If I were to write an essay on this decision, I would definitely want to gather facts from Kelly, and her family, as well as the people who supposedly warned and disqualified, Kelly. I think Rogers defended himself in the right way, with logic and facts, but it still made him look awful for doing so. The simplest solution there is, is to let religion have more of a pull than track rules in general. There are professional athletes that abide by what there religion says, even if that means fasting during their season. I think that even if the same color rule was put into effect to distinguish where racers place at the finish line, it still is a bad decision. The reason they use flash photography at finish lines is to determine the winners of racers. It you cannot tell by a photograph, there is a slim chance that you would be able to eyeball the finish of an intense race.