The Law Paradigm

There is a consensus amongst most people that laws exist to provide for the well-being of people. I whole-heartedly agree; laws are in place to control us and to restrict us from acting in the animalistic ways that we would act without them. Laws set up a system of suffering, doling out horrible punishments for crimes. However, some crimes exist to combat differing views on an issue.

For example, women's suffrage required the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment has and continues to give the right to vote to women everywhere. However, what would occur if this law were to be suddenly repealed. Would society revert back to an age where women could not vote or would society stay the way it is even without the law.

Take another amendment, the 13th, which gives African Americans freedom from the bondage of slavery. If this amendment were to disappear, would our society revert back to once again condemning Africans to a life of work without pay? Would we be so audacious as to revert back to the once normal societal theory that was held?

Sadly, humanity would break any law, if it could. (I know that I am grouping the actions of a group to such a broad term as "humanity" but the society in which we live is determined by the actions of these groups.) The normal tendency for many people is to care only about themselves. For example, if a person sees a fire, he does not usually turn back to see if the person running behind him is okay. We are a selfish race of creatures always worrying only about ourselves. As selfish animals, we would use any loophole (like reverting to slavery or not giving women voting rights) in the system to benefit ourselves financially, personally, or politically.

I want to see a world where there should not have to be laws for the world to be stable. Stability is achieved now because we as a people think that laws are needed to control us. As long as ambition, greed, or jealously exists, the world needs laws, and in fact cannot exist without them. Laws limit us, but only because we allow it to limit us; take control of yourself and decide for yourself how to act in such a away that not only benefits you, but also allows equal opportunities for everyone else.

Islam in America

It goes without saying that I have the right to practice my religion. I am an Syrian Orthodox Christian, a fairly ancient group. It goes without saying that my right to practice that religion is unimpeded in the United States, where I live. Then, why is it that some are against Islam in the US. There are those who do not want "them" in our country. There are those who would rather wish that "they" were dead. But who are these antagonists to protest the right of another to practice their religion?

The world is not meant for one certain group; the world belongs to those who inhabit it. How does one person or group have more right to a plot of land than another? They don't. Then how is it that one group can protest the establishment of mosques in cities like New York or prevent the establishment of Muslim centers in other cities. We are all the same in every way and form except when it comes to religion and culture. If we are all the same, how can there even be a discussion of whether one religion has the right to practice their religion in one area?

Perhaps this hate is caused by that uneventful day 10 years ago. 9/11 occurred on a bright sunny morning, carried out by extreme Islamist groups. Since then, the propaganda spewed by Americans have corrupted the minds of millions leading them to believe all Muslims are terrorists. Then again, most forget about the other extremists like the KKK, who are Christian organized by the way.

To even discuss matters involving religious freedom goes beyond the valid interpretation of our current Constitutional Amendment that gives right to religion. To even discuss this appalls me as I staunchly advocate religious freedom. We have to look past the Galabiyyas and the Burqas, move past the difference in religious beliefs, and get over our now innate hatred of Muslims. Sixty years ago, Jewish people were hated and killed for it. Two hundred years back, Africans were still slaves in this country. We live with hate because we want to hate. Without a scapegoat to transfer this hate to, most of society find it hard to exist. I must say that I will never understand hate for it is a concept that I do not know well. Do I occasionally find myself disliking" someone? Yes. But have I ever found myself "hating"? I don't believe so and I don't think I ever will. We have to, as a people, step back from our asinine oppressive beliefs and embrace the world as it is and as it should be; equal for all people of all kind.

New Threats to Freedom Contest

Nevin Varghese

Regarding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEyZE42nDZU (Greg Lukianoff on Free Speech) *Video is also at the side of the page - the first one

Black ink is the blood, the life of America, and the body is the Constitution, laying out all the laws of the land. Initially the result of conflicts between Federalists and anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights was added onto the Constitution, a metaphorical brain to the body. As one of the greatest rights, the freedom of speech is the first natural right entailed in this bill. However, how far can the literal meaning of “free speech” be taken? There are activists who believe the Constitution should be a living and breathing document and then there are those self-restrained group, who profess that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the framers’ intent. Free speech has been and probably will forever be debated about.

The idea of free speech, according to Mr. Greg Lukianoff in the video “Lukianoff on Free Speech”, should be extended to exclude censorship on college campuses. Mr. Lukianoff proposes a solid idea; campuses take away the right to free speech by strictly censoring information; these campuses are increasingly tightening their grips on censorship and choking off the rights of students to express themselves. However romantic Mr. Lukianoff’s idea may be there is a point when one must draw himself back from the utopia that he finds himself in. Free and unrestrained speech is meant for a society whose inhabitants are perfect. Our society is far from this ideal state that we yearn towards. I cannot deny that the Constitution gives this right to free speech, but the Constitution is meant for a utopic land. It is not meant to cater word for word to the needs of the society in which we live in today. Perhaps the state delegates at the Constitutional Convention should have included a disclaimer at the end warning not to use the document unless society was perfect.

Free speech is like a vicious dog; when chained, the dog is harmless, but when it is unleashed, it will wreak havoc. As long as the world has people who would use free speech for malignant uses, it is better that free speech remains leashed. Perhaps the most recent example is the case of Tyler Clementi, a student at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Tyler’s roommate, Dharun Ravi, secretly videotaped the victim having sex with his partner. Fed up with the horrendous invasion of privacy, Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. According to Mr. Lukianoff’s theory, Rutgers University had no right to censor Dharun, who would only have been (justifiably) expressing his freedom of speech by videotaping Tyler’s sexual encounter; however, this uncontrolled or “uncensored” material led to the death of a teenager. Free speech is a freedom that all people deserve, but cannot have due to the fact that it can be twisted into a weapon. There are laws against libel, threats, and offensive material in place to control humanity, not restrict it. Without this control, civilization as we know it might as well strike “civil” from the word.