To everyone saying that we need to honor and remember our service members, I challenge that this does not mean we have to simultaneously honor and respect blatantly wrong wars and acts perpetuated by our government. Respect those who have fought for our freedom by using that freedom to tell your government to be a source of justice in the world.
As a starting point, here are some of our basic freedoms as outlined by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"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."
"No law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," means not favoring one over another, means we cannot be a Christian nation any more than we can be a Muslim nation or a Buddhist nation or a Pastafarian nation. Separation of church and state is as much protection FOR the church as it is FROM the church.
"Freedom of speech, or of the press" means we can express ourselves. Not with full impunity because historically there have been court rulings limiting what kind of speech is okay. Things like the fuzzily defined obscenity, and libel, slander, etc are generally not okay.
The freedom to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" to me is not just a right, it is a call to hold our government responsible. This does not mean immediately go out and protest, but also protest with your vote. Protest with your wallet. Tell the people you voted for that they owe a responsibility to you to work for peace, justice and equality; they need to protect your rights and your interests over some private entity. And if it comes to it, protest. Gather in numbers and let the government know that it has done wrong by its people.
For more information:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/
http://tinyurl.com/3zszy49
1 comment:
True, very true. Although I think even your clarifying comment about the establishment clause points to its still very nuanced character.
"Protection FOR the Church, as well as FROM the Church." Nothing wrong with this statement, but I think this means more that the government cannot stamp out religious organizations, rather than that there's some obligation to protect them.
Because it's a fine line to walk between protecting freedom of speech and needlessly defending a corrupt, atavistic institution at the expense of genuinely positive things. Like, you know, science.
Post a Comment