Discrimination At The Heart of Same-sex Marriage Debate

The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of our American democracy.  Although it encompasses many amendments, the First Amendment addresses our most fundamental freedoms. This amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression (including speech, press, assembly, association, and belief, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  The Supreme Court interprets the amendments and makes decisions on what is protected or isn’t protected by these rights.  The Court has heard many cases over the decades, and decided that the First Amendment applied to our federal government, and that the “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment protects our First Amendment rights from interference from our state governments. However, the debate over our rights continues to be challenged especially when it comes to our societies’ morals and values, which are often religiously based. 

One of the most contentious issues today is the debate over same-sex marriage.  The lines appear to be clearly drawn between proponents and opponents, and it became a central component of the issues debated during the recent presidential election.  Furthermore, just this week the Supreme Court announced that it will hear its first case on the issue, and like other “landmark cases,” their decision will clearly set a president that will finally clarify the constitutional legality of same-sex marriage. Consequently, this is a “hot topic” being discussed frequently by many in the mass media, and also on the Internet and blogs.  One of those blogs, Awkwardly Political, addressed this issue, and made a thoughtful and well-argued case in favor of same-sex couples being able to marry.  Marriage Discrimination, written by Jamie aka, addresses many of the issues opponents have against this form of marriage.  More specifically, the claim that, “same-sex marriage would negatively impact the sanctity of marriage, the nuclear family, gender roles, and the children that may be raised by homosexual couples.”  What is important to note here, is that our definition of all of these things is morally, religiously, and traditionally based, and not spelled out in the Constitution, or any laws for that matter.  Therefore, Jamie states, “While I can appreciate… disapproval of same-sex marriages, I do not believe that legislation should be based on religious teachings.  As I wrote in a previous entry, religious legislation places limitations on the rights of society as a whole.  I would expect such biased legislation from a theocratic nation, not a democratic republic like the United States.”  I agree with Jamie, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, however, it also has an “establishment clause” which clearly prohibits our government from establishing an official religion, or having a preference for one religion over another.  Furthermore, it strictly enforces the separation of church and state.  In addition, the “free exercise of religion clause” also prohibits the government from interfering with an individual’s practice of their religion.  However, this did not keep the government from passing laws that made same-sex marriage illegal even though the definition of marriage is based solely on religious teachings, and traditional values and morals founded based on those teachings.  

Proponents for same-sex marriage, like Jamie, feel strongly that discrimination is really at the heart of this matter.  She states, “Marriage discrimination is not limited to same-sex marriage, but extends to interracial, interfaith, and interdenominational marriage…in the United States, interfaith and interdenominational marriages are neither prohibited nor regulated by the government, but may be subject to religious authority.”  Jamie supports this claim by pointing to a case the Supreme Court heard in 1967 regarding inter-racial marriage.  Loving v. Virginia was a case where an inter-racial couple that married and were charged with violating anti-miscegenation laws, challenged the legislation and won.  The Court determined that the law was unconstitutional and the decision ended marriage restrictions that discriminated based on race.  Therefore, if the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect our rights when if comes to age, race, gender, why shouldn’t they also protect our sexual orientation as well?  The Court also asserted in this same case, “that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…‘Under our Constitution’ wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, ‘the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state”(Loving).  Why then, do we not have the freedom to marry whatever gender we want?

Whether we believe as Jamie does that, “sexual orientation is an innate trait” or “homosexuality (is) a conscious decision” is irrelevant.  What really matters here, is that we claim to be so proud of, and vehemently defend our Constitutional rights, and yet we are so quick to take those same rights away from others because we simply have a different opinion or find the choices of others are religiously offensive or objectionable.  According to The Supreme Court, this attitude is considered under the First Amendment to be unconstitutional.  During the case of Texas v. Johnson, the court heard arguments about what constitutes freedom of speech, and in the final decision, the Court stated that, “one of the bedrock principles underlying the First Amendment is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”(Texas).  Aren’t the opponents of same-sex marriage doing just that?

We have come a long way in our society when it comes to protecting and defending human rights, because many of the morals and values at the heart of this fight, are rooted in religious and moral beliefs that are woven into the very fabric of who we are.  Unfortunately, those same beliefs are the roots of discrimination, and the history of mankind has always been plagued with this insidious social problem.  However, history has also shown us that persistence pays off.  Therefore, proponents of same-sex marriage need to persevere because ultimately the facts point to the Constitution being on their side. 

Works Cited:

"LOVING v. VIRGINIA." Loving v. Virginia. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.  http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395

"TEXAS v. JOHNSON." Texas v. Johnson. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155/

The Answers Are Right Here In North America

     With another election behind us, it is time for our government to focus their attention on our economy and rebuilding this great country.  Everyday we are being reminded that the most pressing issue to be addressed is the “fiscal cliff.”  I am probably not alone when I wonder why this issue was not taken care of sooner than later.  In my opinion, it is just another example of how dysfunctional our government has become.  The management of our country appears to be all about putting out fires instead of preventing them.  There is no doubt that our government is facing some momentous challenges moving forward, and finding solutions will not be easy.  However, I recently read an article in the Washington Post entitled, “How the U.S. Can Deepen Ties in the Americas” which reminded me that sometimes there are some very viable solutions to our problems right here in North America.

       The author is Robert Zoellick who according to the article is a fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.  Mr. Zoelick asserts that, “while our current administration is focused on more distant lands…there is an opportunity for the United States to strengthen its continental base and leverage the dynamism of the Western Hemisphere as part of a global strategy.”  He points out that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed with Canada and Mexico in 1994, “is now starting to reach its potential, and this is an excellent time to deepen ties.”  He goes on to say that, “the NAFTA countries should invest in a North American community that would make each stronger at home and around the world. For the United States, a more prosperous, growing, populous, integrated, energy-secure and democratic continental base would enhance private-sector possibilities and national power.”  It makes sense that as we refocus on our country here at home, that we look to our neighbors to build a stronger future.  Why do we expend more time, energy, and money on relationships with countries abroad then we do here in North America?  Why do we not leverage and learn from some of the strengths our neighbors have?
    Mr. Zoelick points out that, “as wages rise in East Asia, improved productivity in Mexico and quicker transport at lower cost are strengthening manufacturing on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border. Throughout the financial crisis, Canadian and Mexican fiscal, monetary and banking policies earned global praise, laying a foundation for a continental revival. Mexican and Canadian growth means those countries purchase more here.”  Having lived in Canada most of my life, I know the banking system there has more stringent lending practices, and there is more government oversight which has enabled Canada to come through the global financial crisis virtually unscathed.  In fact, the global community is now looking at the Canadian banking system as it tries to rebuild its fragile financial systems and economies.  Why isn’t our government utilizing knowledge from the Canadian system to help rebuild our financial and banking systems?  Another factor our government should take more seriously is the massive energy resources Canada can provide in the form of oil and gas.  If we were able to leverage those resources, in addition to our own, we could end our dependence on foreign oil, which would have enormous benefits domestically and globally.   However, there are major benefits south of our borders in Mexico as well.
     There is a new President in Mexico who is eager to address his own countries issues, and build strong productive partnerships with the U.S. and Canada as well.  We are spending so much energy debating the issue of illegal immigration in this country, and it appears a consensus is nowhere in sight.  Doesn’t it make sense that we look at it from a new perspective?  What is driving Mexican illegal immigration?  Isn’t it safe to assert that these people just want the same things we do, and our country offers the liberty and opportunities theirs doesn’t?  So wouldn’t we be better served to help Mexico build a stronger country and economy so their people will want to stay?  Mr. Zoelick also states, “with fewer illegal immigrants to the United States and better border security, Mexico and the United States may be able to achieve a politically acceptable and economically sensible immigration policy. While other advanced economies — and many developing ones — will struggle with aging and decreasing populations, North America could become a new type of rising power.”  Why are companies moving manufacturing to Asia when we could bring it home, and even utilize Mexico to help bring jobs to that country?  In addition, we also have huge opportunities in Latin America countries as well, which would help us bring global dominance back to the U.S. and North America.
     There is no doubt our government is facing enormous challenges as we move forward in the 21^st century.  However, instead of expending so much energy in putting out fires, they need to take a proactive approach in rebuilding this country and our economy.  It’s time to stop investing so much time and energy across the seas, and look to our neighbors in North America.  Its time to look back to the roots and history of this great country and continent, and focus our energies here.  Mr. Zoelick sums it up when he says, “as the president looks west across the Pacific and is pulled to the Mideast, he also needs a fresh north-south vision. North America can become a new rising power. And the foundation of the future global system can be “Made in the Americas.”

  

Illegal Immigration Issue Has Similarities to Slavery Issue of The Past

      There is certainly no shortage of issues to debate in this country right now.  However, illegal immigration has certainly become one of the hot topics at the center of many discussions around this country, and both sides of the argument present valid, and passionate opinions and views.  I recently read a blog entitled, “The True Cost of Illegal Immigration for All of Us” where the author Jen Therat asserts, “Immigration reform has been an issue that has been avoided by legislators on the federal level for many years. Possibly driven by worries of offending an ever-growing source of constituents, Congress has avoided making any real progress on immigration reform…”She goes on to point out that many illegal immigrants have an attitude of entitlement, and that our government is more than willing to cater to their needs even if it is a detriment to the U.S. people.”  She makes several very valid points, and this issue certainly has many facets to it.  However, I can’t help but think about the human side of the problem, and why our government is so divided on the issue.  Consequently, I found myself comparing this modern day issue with the time in our history when our founding fathers, and the new settlers of this country, where divided over the issue of slavery.  In many ways, illegal immigration has the potential to become as volatile an issue for many of the same reasons.

    To begin with, we need to address why people want to immigrate in the first place.  Once again, we only have to look back at how this country was founded.  The early settlers came from oversees in an attempt to flee very oppressive governments and monarchies.  Most left behind families, and what ever they had, to take a dangerous journey to a land far a way they knew very little about.  Their strong desire and determination was driven by the innate human desire for freedom, and happiness.  Jen points out in her blog that, “Our country would not be what it is today without the immigrants who have given all of us so much. Throughout our history, we have seen large waves of immigration that have contributed in critical ways to the progress of America. “   The difference between then and now, is we now have immigration procedures, and laws, in order to protect our country and to ensure an orderly and documented process is maintained.   However, as this system developed, the process has become more prohibitive, complicated, and expensive.  As a result, even though people still aspire to move to the U.S., following the legal process is not always an option. Consequently, as human desire has shown historically, people will find a way to achieve liberty even if it means being an illegal immigrant.

     Another important aspect to this issue is the fact that many states, and the businesses operating within them, have encouraged illegal immigration by hiring undocumented workers in order to address the need for workers especially in areas of seasonal, or agricultural work.  Now as this issue has come to the forefront of politics today, I feel that the conflict between the federal and state governments is similar to the time in history when Congress was divided over the issue of slavery. Back then, there were major fundamental differences over the institution because some states economies depended very much on slave labor, whereas, others didn't. In my opinion, illegal immigration has created some of the same issues. There are many states like California, Nevada, and even Texas that also depend a great deal on low-income or seasonal workers.  In addition, there is also a shortage of high-tech workers in fields of math, science, and engineering which is also driving many companies to look outside our borders for qualified workers which is a driving force behind legal immigration today.  Both Bush and Obama have supported improving our education system, and the need to focus on math, science, and engineering in order to address a severe shortage of graduates and potential workers for the high tech industries in this country.

     I don't feel you should enter any country illegally.  In addition, every country has a duty to protect and look out for the best interests of their citizens, and that often requires a country to take a very firm stance on immigration.  However, on the other side of the fence, I certainly feel for the young people Jen refers to in her blog, who were brought here as infants or children, have grown up here and only know the U.S. as their home, and suddenly they are rounded up and returned to a country that is foreign to them. I also wonder as a mother, what lengths I would go to insure my children did not have to grow up not knowing freedom or opportunity, and even worse, living in fear or under the threat of death. The pursuit of those things drove our ancestors here. We are here because of their desire for a better life. Many illegal immigrants, and legal immigrants, are no different. Unfortunately, like slavery, there are many issues at the heart of immigration that drive the divisions between, not only all levels of government, but society as a whole. Consequently, I don't feel legislators are going to be able to come to a consensus any time soon.

A Healthy Democracy Depends On Healthy Citizens

    As we quickly approach another election, we are inundated with information on the many issues being hotly debated by the two political parties.  At the heart of these debates is the role our federal government should play when it comes to many of the common concerns the American people share.  I don’t believe anyone would argue that there always seems to be an exhaustive list of problems to be addressed.  Consequently, the focus tends to shift to the largest issues especially when it relates to money, and the overall potential cost to the American taxpayer.  One of these primary issues is the current healthcare mandate known as “Obamacare.”  During the campaign process of the 2008 election, President Obama proposed the need for healthcare reform was long overdue, and promised if he was elected that he would make revising the current system a priority.  He kept his word, and although he faced great challenges, the new healthcare reform finally was passed and signed into law.  However, even several years later, “Obamacare” is still being criticized and challenged for a multitude of reasons.  Addressing all of the issues would be exhaustive, and is not the intent of this blog.  What I would like to focus on is why I feel our federal government has a responsibility to ensure every citizen has access to affordable healthcare, which requires it to take a more active role.

     This country was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  It is impossible to have any of those things if people don’t have their health.  Therefore, it is vital for any democratic society to ensure that their government values and protects their citizen’s healthcare in the same way they value education, justice, or homeland security.  There is no doubt, how much of a role our government should play in regards to regulating the private sector has also been an issue of heated debate.   However, in order to ensure that every citizen is afforded the same rights and freedoms, our government often has to step in and set standards, establish policies, and even pass laws.  Ironically, most US citizens agree that our healthcare system is broken, and badly in need of change.  Unfortunately, how to fix it has been a huge point of contention, which has hindered real measureable steps toward reform.  So at what point do we say enough is enough?  Isn’t it in our best interest to have a healthy society?   Isn’t our government’s first responsibility to defend and protect us? 

     Another point is in regards to equality.  Once again, I go back to the founding principles from the previous paragraph.  Doesn’t every citizen have the right to access affordable healthcare?  How do we make sure that right is protected when private corporations who discriminate in the name of profit primarily run the healthcare system?  In my opinion, this is where government has to take an active roll by establishing some basic rules and guidelines that protect its citizen’s from unfair practices that breed inequality, and harm society as a whole.  A prime example of this would be excluding a person from coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.  That is like saying you can’t go to school because you don’t have an education!  Furthermore, by allowing unfair practices like this to be tolerated, we are basically saying we have learned nothing from the mistakes of our founding fathers.   More specifically, I am referring to the point in history when they fought so hard for the natural rights of a man, and yet allowed slavery, and inequality for women.   How can we allow people to incur massive debt, and even die, because they are denied or can’t afford healthcare coverage? 

     There is no doubt, a majority of the American public, agree healthcare reform is badly needed.  However, the biggest stumbling block preventing progress appears to be from the fundamentally different philosophies the two political parties embrace.  One feels government should play a predominant role and the other not so much.  Unfortunately, our healthcare system is in the mess it is in because private enterprise, and the quest for corporate profit, has been allowed to prevail at the expense of our citizens and society as a whole.  One of our founding fathers argued for the merit of a federal government by warning us against factions.  Described in the history textbook Am Gov as, “groups most often driven by economic motive, who threaten the unity of the new Republic by placing their own interests above those of the nation as a whole.”  In my opinion, factions are at the root of the healthcare problem in this country, and the only way to change that is for our government to take a more active role. 

-->Mindless Media Chatter

     So once again we sit on the eve of another presidential election.  As is usually the case, we are bombarded with media coverage everywhere we turn.  Many would argue that the many sources of information at our disposal today give “us the people” access to the best information about what is really happening in our democratic society.  Furthermore, our media also keeps tabs on our elected officials so we can hold them accountable for representing us as we intended when we voted for them.  However, does there come a point when the endless chatter becomes so overwhelming that “we the people” can’t hear, or worse yet, don’t want to listen anymore?  Unfortunately, I have reached this point yet again mostly because I no longer feel that the information is truly helpful when it comes to my decision making process.   I have grown tired of the endless commentary over what I consider irrelevant or “nit-picking” dialogue that contributes nothing to the issues at hand.  Therefore, I find myself challenged to truly find a source that helps me “cut to the chase” and analyze the facts in a straightforward manner.  Consequently, I was pleasantly surprised by a blog I read recently by Victor Davis Hansen entitled, “A PresidencySquandered.”

     My Hansen addresses the issue of Obama’s presidency to date, more specifically; he analyzes his true performance in his first term in office.  What I found refreshing, is how Mr. Hansen spells out in a logical, supported manner why he feels President Obama’s presidency to date has been disappointing; even if I don’t totally agree with his opinion.  The blog opens by stating, “The Obama narrative is that he inherited the worst mess in memory and has been stymied ever since by a partisan Congress.”  Mr. Hansen also goes on to point out that, “Never has a president entered office with so much goodwill from so many diverse quarters…rarely does a president enter office with a majority in both the House and the Senate.”  Consequently, I found myself remembering that time, and the overwhelming feeling of hope many of us had when Obama won the election; especially on inauguration day.  So what happened, and why do so many, like Mr. Hansen, now feel that this president has wasted his time in office?  How do we go from such optimism to utter disappointment today?  Furthermore, how do we end up blaming one man for the failure of an entire government?

     Mr. Hansen points out that the media couldn’t get enough of President Obama in the early stages of the Presidency.  He goes on to say that the worst of the financial collapse and biggest part of the recession were almost over in the early months of the new administration.  This may be true, but I don’t think many would argue that the aftermath is still being felt today, and that the domino effect of problems that have occurred have challenged not only the President but also many financially bright minds here at home and around the world.  We can point fingers at the past Bush Presidency for creating the mess, and claim that President Obama was stuck with the mess and has done a poor job fixing it, but in my opinion, this is futile and counterproductive.  As a voter, I want to understand why we can’t seem to fix the problems, and avoid further fall out regardless of who the president is.  Isn’t it up to all of us in this great nation to rally together, and demand that the people we elect “work together” to run this country, and find legitimate solutions to any issue we face? 

     Hansen’s blog also addresses Obama’s heritage briefly, and goes into greater detail about issues of foreign policy and the war in Iraq, oil exploration, Obamacare, and the issue of bipartisanship.  There is no doubt he makes some clear valid points.  However, he sums up his argument by stating that, “Barack Obama chose to ram down the nation’s throat a polarizing, statist agenda, energized by the sort of hardball politics he had learned in Chicago.  Rather than bring the races, classes, and genders together, he gave us an us versus them crusade.”  This is a point where Mr. Hansen and I do not agree.  In my opinion, none of us will ever truly understand what it is like to work in the political theatre in Washington or the world.  However, it has become clear that our branches of government do not work as a team.  Furthermore, I also believe, that many of our President’s have been elected because they represented change, for one reason or another, that the voters desired at the time.  I am sure these men truly believed in their ability and desire to succeed.  However, running this government is not a one man show, and I feel that working with Congress has become the biggest obstacle when it comes to getting things done, and not the fault of one President.

     I voted for President Obama, and I am disappointed by the results of his first term in office, and I am worried about the present and future position of this country.  However, unlike Mr. Hansen, I do not hold the President solely responsible for the failures of the last four years. Unfortunately, all I hear in the media, and from the debates, is that we have problems but virtually no substantive answers on how we solve them.  We just seem to rehash the same issues over and over again.  Furthermore, I am extremely tired of the political theatre that plays out on television.  What I want to hear moving forward is how are we going to fix the problems, and legitimate plans to succeed.  Furthermore, I believe, that the problem with solving our problems is us because we have lost sight of the fundamental values our society was built on.  We have forgotten that this country was founded by people who understood the importance of working together, setting aside differences and personal agendas for the overall good of everyone which meant making compromises and tough choices.  Unfortunately, unless our elected officials get back to a teamwork approach to running this country, and we are prepared to make sacrifices, we will continue to be disappointed by whomever we vote in as President, and no amount of mindless media chatter will ever change that.

-->

  

     I recently spent countless hours reading through a steady stream of editorials from a multitude of mainstream sources attempting to find one about government that struck a cord with me. Finally, I found one in the Washington Post by Mark Davis titled,  "Obama unable to muster foreign policy boldness.”   If there is one thing that does get my attention, is what I consider to be the non-stop blaming of president Obama for everything that is wrong in this country and the world, and it has nothing to do with supporting a democratic president.

     Mr. Davis states, “The short American attention span, coupled with false optimism over an “Arab spring,” has fed our tendency to focus inward and forget the rest of the world, even when it is filled with enemies we dare not ignore….those enemies are energized by American leadership that seems more interested in sugarcoating global risks and protecting its reputation than in speaking truth to evil.”  So I ask, in view of the internal mess our country is in, at what point do we start focusing our energies on our own backyard, instead of everyone else’s?  I’m not saying that the US and our president should turn a blind eye to the rest of the world and abandon foreign policies but I feel strongly that it is time to re-channel some of that energy into fixing our own problems.  In my opinion, we have spent so much time, energy, and money focusing on foreign issues, that we have neglected our country.  How can we try to fix other countries problems when we have so many of our own?  Doesn’t that damage our reputation and credibility even more?  If anything, our enemies, like the Taliban, are celebrating our domestic weaknesses and problems, and are hoping and waiting for us to self-destruct.

     Mr. Davis goes on to say, “ the Taliban are thoroughly enjoying the exit from Afghanistan that President Barack Obama proudly touts as a campaign promise fulfilled.”  Pardon me, but wasn’t the withdrawal timeline actually established by former President Bush?  Even he understood that the American people were not committed to an endless war. Have we forgotten how many US servicemen and women have given their lives in this war, and what about the billions of dollars that have gone into funding it?  What if we had spent even half of that money here at home?  Would our national debt be as large as it is today?  You don’t have to be a brain scientist to understand that we can’t spend what we don’t have.  There is no doubt that we could not continue to support the war for many reasons.  In my opinion, the Taliban are always going to be a threat that we have to take seriously but how do you fight your enemies if you have nothing to fight with?

     Mr. Davis goes even further when he claims, “ the monster Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will escape New York after his United Nations remarks” and that president Obama could care less, and is underestimating the seriousness of the nuclear threat Iran poses.  He also claims our president is too busy promoting himself on television to meet with world leaders.  Really?  Does he truly believe our president does not understand or underestimates the seriousness of this issue or what’s at stake for our country and the rest of the world?   We can’t just deal with a nuclear threat by going to war or dropping bombs.  We have to exhaust all diplomatic options available.  I have no doubt that our president and government is working feverishly behind the scenes to address this massive threat. If we have learned nothing else from our past conflicts, we have to be calm, methodical, and strategic in our actions which I think is exactly what President Obama is doing. 

     Mr. Davis and I did agree on one point, and that is a statement President Obama made when he addressed the United Nations this week, “We believe that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values, they are universal values...I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people and for the people, is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world.”  Our great country was built with hard work, great sacrifice, and diligence.  We did not have another country helping us fight our battles or fund our growth.  However, we have fought for other countries at great human and financial cost over the decades.  I feel if true democracy and freedom is to be won, the people who want it have to fight for it.  We can’t want it more than they do.  In my opinion, too many foreign governments have looked to us over time to have all the answers for many global issues instead of standing on their own two feet.  Now we are hurting and have our own big problems at home.  I don’t see anyone stepping up to help us out. 

     As a country, we have to take a collective responsibility for the mess we are in, stop pointing fingers at each other and playing the blame game. President Obama is not perfect but neither is either one of us.  He clearly stepped into his position at a very volatile time in our history.  The challenges have been endless, and overwhelming.  Mr. Davis, ending a war is not cowardly, and certainly doesn’t mean we have given up fighting for freedom and democracy in this world.  Strength comes from within and isn’t about physical force.  One of the best ways we can standup for our values and show how strong we are as a country is to address the many domestic issues crippling us as a nation.  Once we have our house in order, then and only then will we be in a position to earn respect and truly lead by example.

I thought setting up a blog was a major challenge but that process was a piece of cake compared to trying to decide what I would write about in my first article.  After spending over a week reading through everything from the textbook material for my US Government course, newspapers, mainstream online internet sources, and watching various news sources, I finally realized that the whole point of blogging is about one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy which is covered in chapter two of my US Government textbook.  Embodied in our Bill of Rights are many amendments, which protect our rights and freedoms in this country, but the very first is our freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.   Blogging is just one of the newest forms we use to exercise freedom of speech.  This freedom is being hotly debated around the world right now in view of the YouTube video/film that has insulted many in the Muslim religion, and led to the deaths of many innocent people.   I have not viewed this video or have any intention to.  There is no end of sources discussing this topic but I would like to address one written for Newsweek/ TheDaily Beast that has caught my attention. 

The article is entitled, “Muslim Rage & The Last Gasp of Islamic Hate” and the author is

Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Ms. Ali is a Muslim woman who escaped from Somalia, became involved in Dutch politics, and actively advocated for change in regards to women’s rights in the Muslim religion; even at great cost to her own freedom and safety.  She is currently a New York Times best selling author and a fellow of the Future of Diplomacy Project at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.   Her article focuses mainly on how important the freedom of speech is, and how the freedom of speech our democracy provides can get us into trouble; the latest situation is not the first time.  She points out it has been 23 years since author Salman Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses, infuriated the Muslim world, and there have been other incidents between then and now.  She addresses her personal experiences with speaking out against some of the Muslim philosophies but what caught my attention is the issue of defending our freedom of speech, more specifically, the government of a democracy defending their people’s right.

I, like many people, watched the unfolding news events of last week in disbelief and horror.  It is hard to understand how people like the US ambassador and his colleagues could dedicate their lives to helping an oppressed people fight for their rights and democracy, just to be murdered by extremists from that same society.  There is no question that we also believe in fighting for your beliefs or defending your own religion but at what cost?  There is no doubt that is at the core of the Muslim anger and response.  Let me point out that insulting or offending anyone should never be taken lightly, and this issue certainly deserves respect and discussion on a much bigger scale.  However, I would like to leave that area of the issue for another forum at this time.

My focus in this blog is specifically on the issue of freedom of speech because I found myself struggling with a variety of emotions.  On one hand, I feel the person who made this video/film has a right to speak his opinion, but on the other hand, at what point does it cross the line, and what line?  Is there a line when it comes to free speech?  Do we have a right to express our feelings and thoughts even if it could endanger our entire society or cost someone their life? However, if we view our first amendment rights as being the cornerstone of our democracy, shouldn’t our government defend that right at all costs, and not be apologizing for it? 

Our government is often put in situations of damage control from a diplomatic standpoint, and there is no doubt that is a growing problem in our troubled world today.  However, even though I strongly believe in diplomatic versus military actions in the political theatre, I found myself questioning the response of our government.  On one hand, I think it is in our nature to want to apologize for offending another person, but how do you apologize for freedom of speech?  Will an apology hold any meaning when the people you are apologizing to do not embrace this fundamental value?  Or do they?  After watching the protests spreading around the world, aren’t those people also expressing freedom of speech?  We certainly didn’t see their governments trying to stop the anti-American sentiment we have been witnessing for many years, if not decades, now.  If we look back at previous situations that have insulted the Muslim society or any other society, have we learned anything?  In my opinion, our government has, and continues, to respond like a parent to a child that throws a temper tantrum.  Every time they kick and scream you give into them, and if you never hold your ground, they will never learn to stop kicking and screaming to get their way.  I realize this might not be the best analogy for the seriousness of this situation, and in no way mean to imply the Muslim people are acting like children, but how can we believe so strongly in our first amendment rights, and yet feel we have to apologize for them?  Ms. Hirsi points out in her article how it is an, “utterly incoherent tendency to simultaneously defend free speech—and to condemn its results”(Ali).  Don’t we have a fundamental moral obligation to stand up for what we believe in too?  Is our freedom of speech more or less valuable than their right to defend their religion?

If we are going to continue to be the beacon of freedom in this world we have to protect the very morals and values our democracy is built on.  If we want to see people around the world embrace democracy then as Ms. Ali so eloquently points out, “we must be patient. America needs to empower those individuals and groups who are already disenchanted with political Islam by helping find and develop an alternative. At the heart of that alternative are the ideals of the rule of law and freedom of thought, worship, and expression. For these values there can and should be no apologies, no groveling, no hesitation…I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”(Ali).

Source cited:

Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. "Muslim Rage & The Last Gasp of Islamic Hate." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/16/ayaan-hirsi-ali-on-the-islamists-final-stand.html>.