What Americans do have a right to is their opinion and the means by which to express it, no matter if the opinion is favorable or not. There are some advocates who champion for restrictions on unfavorable speech, like violent or racist remarks. And though the intentions behind such beliefs are made in good faith, it is unrealistic to believe the mission of filtering out racist speech could be completed without catching in the same net all kinds of other speech that is considered "OK" (Lawrence III 514). I firmly believe that a government that tells its citizens what is appropriate to say will soon be dictating what they may think also, and by that, it is unlawful for the government to regulate racist or violent speech. By doing so the government would intrude on students' creativity and learning process, would set illusive restraints on racist behavior, and undermine the Constitution at whole.
The Port Huron Statement, if applied to United States policies, would destroy the liberty carefully established by the Founders, laid out in the Constitution, and defended throughout American history. The Sharon Statement quotes the Declaration of Independence and follows its definition of government to describe how the United States should proceed in its affairs. The Sharon Statement begins by stating that its intention is to “affirm certain eternal truths”, which is similar to the Declaration's preamble, which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The Sharon Statement models its organization as well as its content after the founding document of
According the United States Constitution, the First Amendment protects this right. The main aspect of this constitutional right is to grant religious believers the privilege from laws that impose difficulties on their freedom to practice religions (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/becker.pdf). As you can see, there are many differences in laws between Saudi Arabia and New York States, however there are many more than what was listed above. It is important to know the disparities between laws and how they apply to you. Works Cited Page Al-Awsat, Asharq.
It has come to the attention of many Americans as of late that their right to religious freedom is supposedly being placed into jeopardy. Many people insist that the United States was established on the principles of liberty to practice religion as one pleases, and yet others protest that this nation’s critical founding documents are based on Christian beliefs. Each position has valid contentions, although there are several relatively obvious discrepancies in the argument of total religious independence. However, to accurately understand this quandary of religious dispute, one must look back to the Pilgrims that first landed on North American soil, and get into the minds of the nation’s founders. The men and women who first came to America
These three are the most important of all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is important that we have amendment one, which allows American citizens the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is very important to our country, and as individuals we should be allowed to worship the one true God, or anything else we want. Citizens should be allowed to make whatever comments they would want about the government and not get punished or thrown in jail. Without this amendment Americans would be afraid of the government and afraid to be vocal if the government is involved in wrong doing.
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
On the political side, everyone is free to reject, to revolute and simply to say no. Another aspect of freedom which the American Dream stresses is the freedom of religion as the early founders of the American society have suffered a lot from religious abuse. Freedom of religious beliefs is a basic right for everyone, and any difference in religion cannot be a reason for difference in the gained rights in society. As the American Dream has given great value to the individual, the freedom of expressing person’s opinion and thoughts has imposed itself. Individualism that the American Dream has believed in has made people believe that as they are free individuals everyone should have an opinion and it must at least be heard and respected.
12. Free exercise clause is the First Amendment clause that protects a citizens' right to believe and practice whatever religion he or she chooses. Jehovah's Witnesses' children had been subjected induced the Court to reverse itself and to endorse the free exercise of religion even when it may be offensive to the beliefs of the majority. 13. Congress literally reversed the Court's 1990 decision with the enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, forbidding any federal agency on state government to restrict a person's free exercise of religion unless the federal agency or state government demonstrates that its action "furthers a compelling government interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
Religion and Violence According to the Harvard Divinity School, “Religion is a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices that serves the purpose of establishing rules and principles in a society”. When studying various religions, it becomes credible that the principles instilled are those that are morally “just”. Every major religion specifically addresses the issue of violence, and the vast majority condemns such actions. Individuals following a particular religion are expected to follow the rules and principles established which should create a world that is morally righteous and free from violence. For this instance, this is not the case, society must constantly correct immoral actions performed by certain individuals.
Morgan Wolfgang September 13, 2012 English Mrs. Meister Is The Constitution Still Relevant? How would you answer the question “Is our Constitution still relevant to this day?” Well I would say that yes it is still relevant but there are rights that have been stretched and should be defined, such as The Right to Bear “Arms.” Are we misusing this liberty given to us by our founding fathers? I believe this is a God-given right to defend ourselves, our liberty and our families, but there is no reason that civilians should have bombs or grenades in their homes, that is what we have our military, to protect our country in major ways. All governments, dictatorships, and monarchies have the right to protect their families and liberty, but under the International Small Arms Control Standards made up by the United Nations the Right to Bear Arms is not given to us by our government it is just an American right, it’s a Human right to self-defense. Our founders understood that this right was essential to our self-defense as the children of God.