Thanks for your interest in New Polity!
We are always looking for new writers to make our site the best that it can be. We are expanding and reaching larger audiences than ever before. People want to know what you have to say. So why would you want to write for New Polity?
- You get to voice your opinion.
- You get to put your name out there for others to see.
- You get credit and your name attached to everything that you write.
- You do not need to pay for web hosting, registration, or any of that stuff that makes running a website a headache. Hassle free writing.
- We will include you in our contributors page with a short bio. The more you write, the more you can put into your bio. You can also include links to your other sites.
- You get the warm fuzzy feeling of helping to educate others.
If you feel like you have something important to say about politics and want others to read it, then New Polity is for you. No matter what your political ideology, we would love to have you. Please email us at:
NewPolity.com@gmail.com
In order to maintain the quality of New Polity, we require a writing sample from all prospective contributors. Make it about some sort of political issue. Write about anything that you want, as long as it relates to politics. If your writing meets our standards, then we will post your sample as your very first article on New Polity. (We try to keep our editing to a minimum and the main ideas in your article are always preserved.) At that time we will also give you a unique login and password so that you can post on New Polity whenever you choose. Finally, by writing for NewPolity you take full responsibility for your articles and confirm that everything that you submit and post is original material, unique to NewPolity.
We look forward to hearing from you!
One Response to Write For New Polity
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Our Newest Articles
See What Other Readers are Saying
Personally I support gay rights. I think every American has the right to express his or her position on LGBT issues just as President Obama did recently. Accordingly, I find it disturbing that 2,500 people are currently calling for the firing of University of Nebraska assistant football coach, Ron Brown, because he publicly expressed his opposition to homosexuality and gay rights. Specifically, Brown went before the Omaha City Council in March to speak against a proposed ordinance that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity.
It’s worth noting that Brown is not only a football coach but also a preacher. While I disagree with Coach Brown’s position, I think he absolutely should be able to express his beliefs without fear of losing his job. Brown’s case is really a symptom of a larger problem.
The main reason for the calls for dismissal is that the university has an anti-discrimination policy, stating that students and employees will not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. Critics argue that Brown is violating this policy by publicly opposing gay rights. However, I’d like point that, according to the same anti-discrimination policy, Brown and other employees may not be discriminated against because of religious or political affiliation.
If you watch the video on the link to the CNN article, it’s very clear that Brown’s views on the matter are religiously motivated. I would understand the outrage if Brown were opposing gay rights in a hateful way. For example, I completely understand why people are upset about a North Carolina pastor suggesting that parents should hit their children if their kids begin to act gay. Coach Brown, however, is neither hateful nor demeaning. He’s simply expressing his beliefs. He draws a parallel between failing to speak out against homosexuality and Pontius Pilate’s failure to speak out against and prevent Christ’s crucifixion. Whether or not you agree with Brown’s comparison of the two is irrelevant, what matters is that Ron Brown is explaining his personal grounds for opposing a proposed city ordinance—without calling for violence or anything extreme like that—and people are demanding that he be fired.
Critics also may be tempted to say that Brown’s comments are inappropriate because religiously motivated arguments have no place in politics. As the argument typically goes, the founding fathers clearly separated church and state with the first amendment, and we must maintain that separation. Thus, critics conclude that religiously motivated arguments have no place in the realm of public policy. I certainly agree that the separation of church and state is important, but the first amendment also provides every American with the right to speak freely, meaning that people may refer to God, Krishna, Allah or any other deity in public settings. Admittedly, there are exceptions to this. For example, I understand and respect that teachers in public schools may not force their religious views on pupils. But my point is that citizens do have the right and should have the right to express their religious beliefs in a number of public settings.
After all, what good would free speech be if it meant you can actually only speak freely in private? To say the first amendment entails no speaking about religion in public policy is simply wrongheaded. If we were to prohibit this kind of speech or allow punishment for this kind of speech, we would be flouting the very amendment that critics are concerned about upholding. Not everyone has to agree with or like Brown’s religiously motivated argument, but he has the right to make that argument as a concerned citizen speaking at a city council meeting.
People should not have to muzzle themselves on political, religious, or moral issues for fear that they will lose their jobs. The threat of Brown losing his job for expressing his personal beliefs is every bit as unfair in my mind as a homosexual losing his job because he publicly promotes gay rights. I realize this comment is a bit ironic, considering that Brown is in hot water specifically for speaking against an Omaha ordinance that would prevent discrimination against homosexuals. But my point is that Brown should be able to openly oppose such ordinances without fear of being fired just as gays and those sympathetic to the gay rights movement should be able to openly support such ordinances without fear of being fired.