Hey there folks.
Sorry it’s been a while since my last post. I had my spring break and had quite a few
things to take care of while I was waiting for inspiration. Hopefully I can come back with something you
all want to read.
Today I’m starting the first in a multiple part series
entitled “The Reality of Freedom”, concerning “freedom” and what it really is
and means in America. What do people
think it means? What do people think it
entails? What is actually
happening? I mean to address a wide
range of issues. As always, I would
appreciate comments and feedback, as I look to encourage discussion and want to
hear things I may have overlooked or forgotten.
The US has made a point of promoting itself and the land of
freedom. We tell other countries around the
world to be like us, we take action (sometimes) when we think they’re too far
off, and even use it as a convenient excuse as to why a lot of people around
the world hate us. (Think George W. Bush
“They hate us for our freedom”.) But how free are we really? I argue that the myth and, for lack of a better
work, propaganda about our freedom has gone beyond the realities of life, and this
is dangerous. We are constantly told
that this is a free country. That we
should be happy to we have the things we have.
We are also constantly bombarded with cries that the government is
trying to take away this freedom, or protecting that freedom. I’m going to take a look at the legal
freedoms we have, along with implied and more intangible measures of freedom.
I’ll start where any discussion of freedom in the US should begin,
with the Bill of Rights. It is the
foundational document for protecting the freedom of American citizens, and also
the source of quite a lot of controversy.
The Reality of Freedom
Part 1: The Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment
is probably the most often discussed, along with the second. It creates the establishment clause, commonly
understood as the separation of church and state, the free exercise clause
(freedom of religion), the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and the right
to petition. Although it seems pretty
straight forward, there are multitudes of issues that arise in the application
of these principles. “How can you argue
with these most basic American values?” you might wonder. Honestly, I don’t have to. The government and others do plenty for me.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion
This line has been
always been read as the separation of church and state. Congress cannot dictate a religion to the
citizens. In its time, this was a direct
reaction to the former mother country. England
had a colorful history of the state religion changing with every other monarch,
and the people were always forced to change with them. This line was meant directly to combat this
changing and all the trouble that went with it.
It was been interpreted also to prevent the government from even
favoring one religion over another. Right
off the bat we have a problem. I touched
on this in one of my earliest posts about Republican hypocrisy. A large portion of the GOP directly argues
against this value. Politicians such as
Rick Santorum openly base their careers and policies off of their religious
values. Now, I understand that your
morals will be based in part off your belief system, and I’m not saying that is
necessarily a bad thing. The point is
that they openly state that the US is a “Christian Nation” while passing
legislation that forces their religious moral codes upon millions and millions
people who don’t agree. Republicans are
waging a war on contraceptives and abortion because their religious codes don’t
like it. How is this different than a
monarch forcing people to attend a certain church or dress a certain way
because of their beliefs? Answer: It isn’t. True, they aren’t passing laws officially
declaring a state religion, but their constant promoting of “Christian” values
and attacks on Islam clearly show a bias or favoritism of one religion over
another. A politician’s religion shouldn’t
matter in the job, but have you ever seen a president who didn’t say “God Bless
America” at the end of every speech like a verbal tick? Hell, Kennedy almost didn’t get elected
because he was the wrong kind of Christian.
Two of the major mudslinging topics of the 2008 presidential campaign
alternated between accusing Obama of being a Muslim and criticizing his beliefs
because his church’s pastor said some inflammatory things. Pick one people. Is he Muslim or a crazy Christian? Can you honestly imagine a non-Christian being
elected president?
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
On this issue, the
US has done fairly well until recently.
Obviously, some people have always had prejudices against other
religions, but recent waves of anti-Islamic sentiment have led to local
governments barring the building of mosques in certain communities. This is clearly the government prevent
worship of a specific religion. There
was one case, I can’t remember exactly where, but the city was preventing a
mosque from being built in a neighborhood because it was too close to an elementary
school, while there was a Lutheran Church a block away. Again, government interference. Either allow any worship center near the
school, or none. You don’t get to pick
and choose. This is also tied in with my
earlier point about politicians. People
are free to worship and believe whatever they want, until they want to get
elected to office. Good luck getting
elected if you aren’t the right religion.
That’s it for today
because my fingers are tired. I’ll
continue with the first amendment next time.
(oh, and answer my
poll question to the right!)