Cassie Tolhurst

Journal 4

Using your readings by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Henry David Thoreau as a starting point,
please think about what a citizen is. Use first person "I" in your response, and ask yourself
what makes you a "good citizen?" Consider the responsibilities of being a citizen to self,
community, our society, and our country. How would you define a "good citizen" of the United
States? How does Thoreau define a good citizen? Would Martin Luther King, Jr. agree with your
definition, or with Thoreaus definition? Please give direct quotes to support your thinking, and
always dig deeper into your explanation as well. (500 words minimum)
I believe that I am a good citizen because I value others, as much as a value myself. I always do
my best cherish differences, and understand their point of view. I am friendly, and I know that a c simple
wave of a smile can do a lot to turn around someones day. I am a good citizen because I am going to
school to better myself, and become a productive citizen. I was a Girl Scout for ten years and I put in
countless hours of volunteer work, giving back to my community. I do my best not to judge others, and
forgive and understand. My view of a good citizen is based on my personal values, and what is important
to me.
In the United States a good citizen is someone who fulfills their civic duty, by abiding the law,
paying taxes, voting, and embracing diversity. Our rich history has also helped shape the United States
version of a good citizen. Throughout the years in US history, there have been many people who stood up
against unjust laws. A good citizen is someone who isnt afraid to fight for what is right, even though it isnt
easy.
Thoreau defines a good citizen as someone who puts the greater good first, even though an
establishment or the majority dont agree. In juxtaposition, he defines a bad citizen as someone who
turns a blind eye to injustices and does not speak out against the legal system when they disagree with
something. He says What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I
condemn. (Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau) This is a view on a good citizen that was not
something that I had originally thought of.
Personally I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with both of our definitions. Although basing
it on his fight for equality and the civil rights movement, I think that he would align more with Thoreau. My
idea of being a good citizen is very self-centered, while Thoreaus emphasizes the larger picture and
injustices. Analyzing both of our definitions side by side makes me realize the value of my own, but also
makes me want to strive to be more like Thoreau. It is very easy to let injustices happen, when they dont
directly affect you. It is important to take a stand for want is right, although it wont be the path of least
resistance.

Explain your personal philosophy regarding your individual rights, freedoms, morality, values and
responsibilities, especially to the LAWS, your COMMUNITY, and your COUNTRY. What

responsibilities come with being free? Who decides what these responsibilities are? Do these
responsibilities require enforcement? If so, by whom? (500 words minimum)

My personal philosophy regarding my individual rights is based around personal choice. I believe
that I should have the choice of what to do with my future, the choice of my personal beliefs, and the
choice of what to do with my body. With rights like education, there is an obligation and responsibilities to
make that happen. For example, K-12 is free for all students, but it isnt free to run. The cost of education
is paid by taxes, and then made available to citizens.
The responsibilities that come with being free are becoming a productive citizen and help
protecting these values and freedoms for other generations to come. You need to give back to society so
that society can then give those freedoms back to you. Voting is very important responsibility that we have
as a free United States. If you dont vote, then you arent doing your part at helping guiding our country
the correct way. The ability to vote and create a government for the people by the people was something
that many people fought and lost their lives for.
I think some of the responsibilities require enforcement, like paying taxes. The government would
be the best to enforce this, because they are the ones who keep record of payments. Other enforcement
of responsibilities would best be done citizen to citizen. Asking people if they have voted, or involving
others in giving back. It isnt something that should be law, but promoted on an individual level.

What should be done with people preachers, iconoclasts, educators, or anyone else who
seemingly undermine the values of the society where they live such as Thoreau was doing in New
England, or Martin Luther King, Jr. in the South? What seems to be the proper relation between
the individual and the community, and between the local community and society in the broader
sense? Consider Kay Andersons attempt to stop Michael Moore from speaking at UVU a couple
of years ago because this man does not represent the values of this community. (You can
watch a documentary entitled This Divided State which deals with the situation at UVU at this
link:http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/this_divided_state)

The statement What should be done with people preachers, iconoclasts, educators, or anyone
else who seemingly undermine the values of the society where they live takes a whole new meaning
when you add on, such as Thoreau was doing in New England, or Martin Luther King, Jr. in the South?.
People often forget that a point of view other than their own might have merit, and needs to be heard. It
might be easy to think that someone who does that should be stopped, but when you put the names
Thoreau and Martin Luther King, Jr after it- opinions might change.
Each member creates a community. An individual is just as much of a part of a community as a
majority. Also, a community is a smaller section of a society. A club at school can be a community, within

the larger community of a college, and even than within the community of a county, state and so on
then to society on the larger scale.
I was riveted by the documentary Divided State. It was quite literally embarrassing for me to
watch. Kay Anderson thought he was standing up for his community by not allowing Michael Moore to
speak, although I dont believe he was doing the right thing. He was speaking for a cross section of his
community that he believed in. It may have been the majority, but that doesnt make the majority right. He
disregarded societys value of free speech, and even his own religions values of acceptance and
tolerance. I was shocked by the volatile attitudes that this brought up, and how even the Professors and
faculty spoke out in favor and were treated with zero respect just because they had a different view point. I
think diversity should be listened to and embraced. You as an individual can decide not to listen, or
believe but that shouldnt stop the message from being broadcasted.