Kyldare
Smash Apprentice
I don't anticipate anybody even reading the first paragraph, let alone finishing this entire work. This was a piece of writing that I submitted for my English portfolio at Washington state. We had to write on a topic that we felt was uniquely American, or one that defined us as a nation or people. I am an undergraduate studying Journalism and Political Science at WSU, and posted this because it has been nominated for a writing award, and also because I am very proud of it. Ummmm..... sweet
The First Amendment: Stitching Together the Fabric of Our Free American Society
American freedom. It is a unique brand of liberty, equality, and justice quite unlike anything seen in any other nation of the world. The right of Americans to practice any religion they so choose, speak their mind about the government, assemble peaceably, and petition the government for a redress of grievances is the essential stitching holding together the fabric that is the United States of America. More simply put, these freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, petition, and press are all things inextricably linked to the success and prominence of America as a nation. Whenever Americans turn on a television, read the newspaper, or surf the Internet they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Contemporary governmental systems and nations of the world such as those in North Korea, Iran, and China should help us realize how important American freedoms actually are. Yet, as a society we are frequently unaware of how all of these privileges positively affect the free lifestyles many of us enjoy, and how much gravity they actually hold on our everyday lives. Throughout the years of American history, our previous countrymen have fought to keep our Constitutional and Amendment rights protected. As the result of a combination of complacency and sheltered lifestyle, the promises of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the most important Amendment, are slowly being stripped away from our national identity by our society, and by our government. As Americans, we must do all we can to prevent the demise of our rights under the First Amendment, and fight to keep the freedoms promised by our forefathers.
The aforementioned privileges that our society enjoys, all fall under the topic of this essay, the First Amendment. Originally the United States Constitution had garnered criticism because it did not include an absolute guarantee that some of our civil liberties would be upheld. Thus, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was created. An amendment to the constitution is usually a missing or gray area in the constitution itself, that needs to be filled. Amendments can be seen more simply as additions to the United States Constitution that attempt to modify and evolve its guarantees. An amendment to the constitution is an important modification that has such potential impact on society, that it must undergo rigorous criteria to be fully exacted. According to Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States” (Holzer viii).
If we are to learn how to protect our First Amendment rights that required such a great effort to be put into place, we first must learn what they are, and why they are essential and important to American identity. The most famous section of the First Amendment, which is also the fundamental message of the Amendment itself is this: “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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Holzer 69).
The first component of the First Amendment regards the freedom of speech. According to Keith Werhan in his book: Freedom of Speech, he says that “in order to understand the origins of the American commitment to freedom of speech, then, it is profitable to first take a quick look at England before the American Revolution” (1). Indeed, it is often very important to look to the past and see how it has determined and shaped our future. Because Americans were once an English colony, our system of government, law, and social identity was based upon the English model. For nearly all of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, freedom of speech in England was not a right that was enjoyed by individuals. Their version of freedom of speech “referred to the hard-won immunity from prosecution enjoyed by members of Parliament” (Werhan 1). This basically translates into the idea that as long as you were in the Parliamentary building at the time, you could speak your mind and not suffer any immediate consequences. However, open debate during this era in English history was not held by commoners, but by their representatives; the rich, elite, and ruling class. This meant that the common people themselves, were merely allowed to listen quietly to the debate, but never given the chance to participate and speak their mind. When the creators of the constitution gave the ideas of free speech, it in fact, “largely rested with ... members of Congress” (2). However, these rights did not fully apply to, or transition to freedom of speech for everyday citizens. One of the things that makes the First Amendment so important is the fact that after its inception, true “freedom of speech” theoretically applied to each and every individual in the nation. Though it took time for the institution of slavery to be abolished, we eventually realized that it did not fulfill the promises of the First Amendment, and thus our American version of free speech was born now. Often today, we see acts by our government, such as The United States Patriot Act that try to limit our freedom of speech, however, this is not the first time this has occurred. The Sedition Act of 1798 made any false scandalous, or malicious statement about the government, Congress, or the President a federal crime (Werhan 12). According to the Act itself, this included all statements against the government, Congress, or the President that were made “with intent to defame... or to bring them... into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them... the hatred of the good people of the United States.” It also stated that, during trial “the jury... shall have the determine the law and the fact, under directions of the court, as in other cases” (Werhan 12). As we can tell from the text of this act, it not only explicitly limited Americans ability and right of dissent covered in the First Amendment, but left the power of a fair trial in the event someone broke the law with the government, not the jury. This effectively took all influence in regard to dissent and freedom of speech away from the citizens of the United States, and vested power within the Sedition Act, not in the First Amendment.
However, our American predecessors would not let this defamation of Constitutional rights continue. On March 4, 1801, Jefferson took up office as the President of the United States. In accord with the terms of the Sedition Act itself, it's power was lifted upon this date. However, Jefferson and the American public were not content with merely letting the Sedition Act go quietly into the annals of history. According to Werhan, Jefferson “pardoned those who had been convicted under the act, and Congress, now under Republican control, authorized the government to repay their fines” (14). Both President Jefferson and Congress authorized these actions on the basis of the Sedition Act being in direct violation of the Constitution. The elimination of the Sedition Act showed us, by example, the negative effects that limiting freedom of speech has on a people. During the era of the Sedition Act itself, there was only a single acquittal of charges out of every single case, and there were hundreds if not thousands of convictions. The accused in violation of the Act were often influential leaders that advocated our right to freedom of speech, including newspaper editors and Republican Supreme court Justices (Werhan 14). The events of the Sedition Act era show us how a transformation of Constitutional law and a dis figuration of Amendment policy negatively affect our rights as citizens. The First Amendment was put into place especially to stop circumstances like those following the Sedition Act from taking place. The people of this era showed us that if we merely sit by and let others, in this case, the Federalist party, change our Constitutionally given rights, our government, and subsequent social structure begins to crumble.
Even after the repeal of the Sedition Act, our free American lifestyle began to be challenged. The Sedition Act was in essence, a device created by the Federalist-controlled government to try and curb the influence of Republican aligned citizens in positions of power or great influence. Though the Sedition Act was not in place, the Federalist majority in our government insured the continuation of slavery, and lack of representation of the oppressed. Many Federalists and citizens of southern states feared revolt of their disenfranchised and ill-treated slaves. During this time many abolitionists were very outspoken in their attempt to alert and sway the public opinion on slavery. Thus, the Federalist-dominated government attempted to make laws to curb the outbreak of free speech that had arisen from the institution of slavery. At this point, all of the states in the south, except for Kentucky, decided to pass legislation that restricted the discussion of abolition, the circulation of abolitionist materials, and participation of University groups in the south pertaining to abolition (Fraleigh 76-77). Eventually, the institution of slavery crumbled through the actions of those who refused to have their rights silenced, and over time, the freed slaves were given the rights that were guaranteed by the First Amendment. The collapse of slavery is one example of our freedom of speech swaying the consensus of the public enough to actualize change. Our society had come to the realization that freedom to speak out against institution, dominion, and government continued to garner positive results for our society, and that our continued freedom of speech and dissent would continue to steer us toward becoming a better people.
Of course, freedom of speech under the First Amendment would be nearly useless if it were solely allowed on an individual basis. Freedom of speech needs a motor, it needs medium to transfer the ideals of individuals to the masses so as to incite actual change. This actualization comes in the form of “freedom of the press,” the second guarantee of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Once again, we must look to American and English history to give us insight into our own daily lives. The advent of the printing press in England in 1476 brought on action from the government to try and silence the budding influence of the mass-produced written word. Starting in 1538, the English government began a system that required all potentially mass-produced material to be reviewed by the government before being published and sent into the masses (Werhan 2). In addition, during the pre-colonial era, according to Denbaux in his article The First word of the First Amendment, “There simply never existed a golden age of free speech in England” (1176). Even after the monarchy was overthrown, the parliament of England continued the restriction of press release citing the fact that they were indeed representative of the people themselves, so they could speak for the populous. This attitude toward freedom of press that was handed down to the colonialists was not one that was conducive to realizing a free market of ideas. Though Levy, in Emergence of a Free Press says “The persistent image of colonial America as a society in which freedom of expression was cherished is a hallucination of sentiment that ignores history” (16). However, overarching American colonial history will tell us otherwise. In early colonial history, due to the limitations placed on the colonists by British rule, Werhan notes that in colonial America “the practice of free speech outpaced the right of free speech” (6). He then adds that because of the distance between the source of governmental power and the colonized people, not only was “English authority in America never pervasive” but “free speech in America was far freer than the mother country” (6). Of course the colonist's need for freedom of speech and disdain for foreign repression and taxation led to our war for independence. The rest is history, including the formation of our Constitution and subsequent creation of the First Amendment.
Of course, early Americans did not solve the problem of government controlling what types of content was allowed, and through which medium it would be allowed for consumption by the general people. With the advent of daily publications, radio, television, recorded music, and more recently, the Internet, control of what is allowed to be released is hampering the “freedom of the press.” More recently in American history there has been untold amounts of controversy between the music industry, the people, and the government regarding the type of content that it is and should be allowed for release. From the first days of jazz, to Elvis Presley, to the more contemporary world of Rap and Hip-Hop, the role of music in our lives and it's controversy seems to be growing. One of the most disputed songs over the last 15 was the infamous anthem “Cop Killer” by the artist Ice-T. It featured lyrics depicting the celebration of the murder of police officers. Opponents such as Charleton Heston, in his essay directed to the Time-Warner group that manufactured and sold the music believe that song lyrics should be subject to free speech limitations. His essay is featured in the book Free Speech from the Current Controversies series, and was given in a public address to the Time-Warner company. In the address he explains that he thinks “the right to free speech is not without limits, both public and private.” He then states that “Free speech does not include the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The lyrics of “Cop Killer” go a lot farther than that” (Bender 124).
Much like the opinion of Charleton Heston, the writers of The New Republic, a weekly journal feel that the song “Cop Killer,” both incites and glorifies violence. However, they also believe in the freedom of the press and the protection that it offers an artist to distribute his or her material to the masses. They contend that “the contents of American culture cannot be hidden behind the freedom of American culture” (Bender 146). The ending statement of the essay is as follows: “Of course we must hear the news that culture brings. But then we must engage it, and challenge it, as citizens of an open society do. To defend freedom, you must also defend foulness: and then you must acknowledge that it is foulness that you are defending” (Bender 147). The message here is very simple; though we may not always personally agree with the messages of content that is produced by our culture, if we are truly to remain a people that are actualized and enabled by “freedom of the press” then we must stand against limitations on our expression. Though messages like Charleton Heston's make a valid point, the true consequences of statements like his gradually tear down our right to freedom of the press. Every time a song is not released to the public, it slowly chips away at the foundation of our nation, and pushes our society further away from “freedom of the press” and our First Amendment.
Another facet of the First Amendment, and perhaps the most important regards the freedom of religion. According to Haiman in his book: Religious Expression and the American Constitution, free religion is mentioned first in the actual text of the First Amendment because it was probably the most important to the creators of the amendment itself. He mentions that “The founders of our country came to these shores primarily to escape the discriminatory hand of the established church of England” (11). He also points out that if a government has a preferred and established religion, those that exercise a different religion, or those that have none, often have their rights inhibited (12). Indeed, there is a high correlation between states dominated by religious law and the oppression of that country's religious minority. The most evident example at this time is visible in Iraq. The social strife and previous genocide involving the Sunni majority and Shiite minority are well known to the American public. Though Muslims in America are often subjected to unfair prejudice from a cultural standpoint, this discrimination comes from a personal source. The First Amendment embraces the religious minority, and also allows them to practice their religion under Constitutional law. The continuation of this precedent is guaranteed as the First Amendment will allow no law to be drafted preventing them from doing so.
Overall, the First Amendment is among the most complex and personally involved constitutional issues. Everyone is entitled by the First Amendment to hold and convey their own opinion, and indeed they do. However, the message of this essay was not to say whether or not somebody's opinion is more valuable or less important than another's, but rather to say it is very important for us simply to be able to have and impart our opinions. In Modern Liberty, a book by Charles Fried, he states that our government can “ treat it's hold on us at the beginning of our lives as a trust discharged by helping us to emerge as free and rational persons, or it can try to prolong it's parental advantage by training us not for independence but for dependence and belonging.” Often times it seems like our society would like us to be shaped into the latter. It is very easy to believe that “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 of the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” is merely a far fetched Libertarian model for a Utopian society that simply can not exist. Instead of seeking truth, liberty, and justice for all, we often become complacent and satisfied with our place in this country feeling that there is nothing we can do to steer this country toward the true realization of the Constitution. It is all too easy to take life as it is, and not strive to seek out and destroy the institutions of injustice that surround us. The tool in this war against oppression of our rights is the First Amendment. All we have to do is continue to use this set of ideals to break down the walls holding us back from becoming the nation that our forefathers wanted us to become.
The First Amendment: Stitching Together the Fabric of Our Free American Society
American freedom. It is a unique brand of liberty, equality, and justice quite unlike anything seen in any other nation of the world. The right of Americans to practice any religion they so choose, speak their mind about the government, assemble peaceably, and petition the government for a redress of grievances is the essential stitching holding together the fabric that is the United States of America. More simply put, these freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, petition, and press are all things inextricably linked to the success and prominence of America as a nation. Whenever Americans turn on a television, read the newspaper, or surf the Internet they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Contemporary governmental systems and nations of the world such as those in North Korea, Iran, and China should help us realize how important American freedoms actually are. Yet, as a society we are frequently unaware of how all of these privileges positively affect the free lifestyles many of us enjoy, and how much gravity they actually hold on our everyday lives. Throughout the years of American history, our previous countrymen have fought to keep our Constitutional and Amendment rights protected. As the result of a combination of complacency and sheltered lifestyle, the promises of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the most important Amendment, are slowly being stripped away from our national identity by our society, and by our government. As Americans, we must do all we can to prevent the demise of our rights under the First Amendment, and fight to keep the freedoms promised by our forefathers.
The aforementioned privileges that our society enjoys, all fall under the topic of this essay, the First Amendment. Originally the United States Constitution had garnered criticism because it did not include an absolute guarantee that some of our civil liberties would be upheld. Thus, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was created. An amendment to the constitution is usually a missing or gray area in the constitution itself, that needs to be filled. Amendments can be seen more simply as additions to the United States Constitution that attempt to modify and evolve its guarantees. An amendment to the constitution is an important modification that has such potential impact on society, that it must undergo rigorous criteria to be fully exacted. According to Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several states shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States” (Holzer viii).
If we are to learn how to protect our First Amendment rights that required such a great effort to be put into place, we first must learn what they are, and why they are essential and important to American identity. The most famous section of the First Amendment, which is also the fundamental message of the Amendment itself is this: “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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Holzer 69).
The first component of the First Amendment regards the freedom of speech. According to Keith Werhan in his book: Freedom of Speech, he says that “in order to understand the origins of the American commitment to freedom of speech, then, it is profitable to first take a quick look at England before the American Revolution” (1). Indeed, it is often very important to look to the past and see how it has determined and shaped our future. Because Americans were once an English colony, our system of government, law, and social identity was based upon the English model. For nearly all of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, freedom of speech in England was not a right that was enjoyed by individuals. Their version of freedom of speech “referred to the hard-won immunity from prosecution enjoyed by members of Parliament” (Werhan 1). This basically translates into the idea that as long as you were in the Parliamentary building at the time, you could speak your mind and not suffer any immediate consequences. However, open debate during this era in English history was not held by commoners, but by their representatives; the rich, elite, and ruling class. This meant that the common people themselves, were merely allowed to listen quietly to the debate, but never given the chance to participate and speak their mind. When the creators of the constitution gave the ideas of free speech, it in fact, “largely rested with ... members of Congress” (2). However, these rights did not fully apply to, or transition to freedom of speech for everyday citizens. One of the things that makes the First Amendment so important is the fact that after its inception, true “freedom of speech” theoretically applied to each and every individual in the nation. Though it took time for the institution of slavery to be abolished, we eventually realized that it did not fulfill the promises of the First Amendment, and thus our American version of free speech was born now. Often today, we see acts by our government, such as The United States Patriot Act that try to limit our freedom of speech, however, this is not the first time this has occurred. The Sedition Act of 1798 made any false scandalous, or malicious statement about the government, Congress, or the President a federal crime (Werhan 12). According to the Act itself, this included all statements against the government, Congress, or the President that were made “with intent to defame... or to bring them... into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them... the hatred of the good people of the United States.” It also stated that, during trial “the jury... shall have the determine the law and the fact, under directions of the court, as in other cases” (Werhan 12). As we can tell from the text of this act, it not only explicitly limited Americans ability and right of dissent covered in the First Amendment, but left the power of a fair trial in the event someone broke the law with the government, not the jury. This effectively took all influence in regard to dissent and freedom of speech away from the citizens of the United States, and vested power within the Sedition Act, not in the First Amendment.
However, our American predecessors would not let this defamation of Constitutional rights continue. On March 4, 1801, Jefferson took up office as the President of the United States. In accord with the terms of the Sedition Act itself, it's power was lifted upon this date. However, Jefferson and the American public were not content with merely letting the Sedition Act go quietly into the annals of history. According to Werhan, Jefferson “pardoned those who had been convicted under the act, and Congress, now under Republican control, authorized the government to repay their fines” (14). Both President Jefferson and Congress authorized these actions on the basis of the Sedition Act being in direct violation of the Constitution. The elimination of the Sedition Act showed us, by example, the negative effects that limiting freedom of speech has on a people. During the era of the Sedition Act itself, there was only a single acquittal of charges out of every single case, and there were hundreds if not thousands of convictions. The accused in violation of the Act were often influential leaders that advocated our right to freedom of speech, including newspaper editors and Republican Supreme court Justices (Werhan 14). The events of the Sedition Act era show us how a transformation of Constitutional law and a dis figuration of Amendment policy negatively affect our rights as citizens. The First Amendment was put into place especially to stop circumstances like those following the Sedition Act from taking place. The people of this era showed us that if we merely sit by and let others, in this case, the Federalist party, change our Constitutionally given rights, our government, and subsequent social structure begins to crumble.
Even after the repeal of the Sedition Act, our free American lifestyle began to be challenged. The Sedition Act was in essence, a device created by the Federalist-controlled government to try and curb the influence of Republican aligned citizens in positions of power or great influence. Though the Sedition Act was not in place, the Federalist majority in our government insured the continuation of slavery, and lack of representation of the oppressed. Many Federalists and citizens of southern states feared revolt of their disenfranchised and ill-treated slaves. During this time many abolitionists were very outspoken in their attempt to alert and sway the public opinion on slavery. Thus, the Federalist-dominated government attempted to make laws to curb the outbreak of free speech that had arisen from the institution of slavery. At this point, all of the states in the south, except for Kentucky, decided to pass legislation that restricted the discussion of abolition, the circulation of abolitionist materials, and participation of University groups in the south pertaining to abolition (Fraleigh 76-77). Eventually, the institution of slavery crumbled through the actions of those who refused to have their rights silenced, and over time, the freed slaves were given the rights that were guaranteed by the First Amendment. The collapse of slavery is one example of our freedom of speech swaying the consensus of the public enough to actualize change. Our society had come to the realization that freedom to speak out against institution, dominion, and government continued to garner positive results for our society, and that our continued freedom of speech and dissent would continue to steer us toward becoming a better people.
Of course, freedom of speech under the First Amendment would be nearly useless if it were solely allowed on an individual basis. Freedom of speech needs a motor, it needs medium to transfer the ideals of individuals to the masses so as to incite actual change. This actualization comes in the form of “freedom of the press,” the second guarantee of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Once again, we must look to American and English history to give us insight into our own daily lives. The advent of the printing press in England in 1476 brought on action from the government to try and silence the budding influence of the mass-produced written word. Starting in 1538, the English government began a system that required all potentially mass-produced material to be reviewed by the government before being published and sent into the masses (Werhan 2). In addition, during the pre-colonial era, according to Denbaux in his article The First word of the First Amendment, “There simply never existed a golden age of free speech in England” (1176). Even after the monarchy was overthrown, the parliament of England continued the restriction of press release citing the fact that they were indeed representative of the people themselves, so they could speak for the populous. This attitude toward freedom of press that was handed down to the colonialists was not one that was conducive to realizing a free market of ideas. Though Levy, in Emergence of a Free Press says “The persistent image of colonial America as a society in which freedom of expression was cherished is a hallucination of sentiment that ignores history” (16). However, overarching American colonial history will tell us otherwise. In early colonial history, due to the limitations placed on the colonists by British rule, Werhan notes that in colonial America “the practice of free speech outpaced the right of free speech” (6). He then adds that because of the distance between the source of governmental power and the colonized people, not only was “English authority in America never pervasive” but “free speech in America was far freer than the mother country” (6). Of course the colonist's need for freedom of speech and disdain for foreign repression and taxation led to our war for independence. The rest is history, including the formation of our Constitution and subsequent creation of the First Amendment.
Of course, early Americans did not solve the problem of government controlling what types of content was allowed, and through which medium it would be allowed for consumption by the general people. With the advent of daily publications, radio, television, recorded music, and more recently, the Internet, control of what is allowed to be released is hampering the “freedom of the press.” More recently in American history there has been untold amounts of controversy between the music industry, the people, and the government regarding the type of content that it is and should be allowed for release. From the first days of jazz, to Elvis Presley, to the more contemporary world of Rap and Hip-Hop, the role of music in our lives and it's controversy seems to be growing. One of the most disputed songs over the last 15 was the infamous anthem “Cop Killer” by the artist Ice-T. It featured lyrics depicting the celebration of the murder of police officers. Opponents such as Charleton Heston, in his essay directed to the Time-Warner group that manufactured and sold the music believe that song lyrics should be subject to free speech limitations. His essay is featured in the book Free Speech from the Current Controversies series, and was given in a public address to the Time-Warner company. In the address he explains that he thinks “the right to free speech is not without limits, both public and private.” He then states that “Free speech does not include the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The lyrics of “Cop Killer” go a lot farther than that” (Bender 124).
Much like the opinion of Charleton Heston, the writers of The New Republic, a weekly journal feel that the song “Cop Killer,” both incites and glorifies violence. However, they also believe in the freedom of the press and the protection that it offers an artist to distribute his or her material to the masses. They contend that “the contents of American culture cannot be hidden behind the freedom of American culture” (Bender 146). The ending statement of the essay is as follows: “Of course we must hear the news that culture brings. But then we must engage it, and challenge it, as citizens of an open society do. To defend freedom, you must also defend foulness: and then you must acknowledge that it is foulness that you are defending” (Bender 147). The message here is very simple; though we may not always personally agree with the messages of content that is produced by our culture, if we are truly to remain a people that are actualized and enabled by “freedom of the press” then we must stand against limitations on our expression. Though messages like Charleton Heston's make a valid point, the true consequences of statements like his gradually tear down our right to freedom of the press. Every time a song is not released to the public, it slowly chips away at the foundation of our nation, and pushes our society further away from “freedom of the press” and our First Amendment.
Another facet of the First Amendment, and perhaps the most important regards the freedom of religion. According to Haiman in his book: Religious Expression and the American Constitution, free religion is mentioned first in the actual text of the First Amendment because it was probably the most important to the creators of the amendment itself. He mentions that “The founders of our country came to these shores primarily to escape the discriminatory hand of the established church of England” (11). He also points out that if a government has a preferred and established religion, those that exercise a different religion, or those that have none, often have their rights inhibited (12). Indeed, there is a high correlation between states dominated by religious law and the oppression of that country's religious minority. The most evident example at this time is visible in Iraq. The social strife and previous genocide involving the Sunni majority and Shiite minority are well known to the American public. Though Muslims in America are often subjected to unfair prejudice from a cultural standpoint, this discrimination comes from a personal source. The First Amendment embraces the religious minority, and also allows them to practice their religion under Constitutional law. The continuation of this precedent is guaranteed as the First Amendment will allow no law to be drafted preventing them from doing so.
Overall, the First Amendment is among the most complex and personally involved constitutional issues. Everyone is entitled by the First Amendment to hold and convey their own opinion, and indeed they do. However, the message of this essay was not to say whether or not somebody's opinion is more valuable or less important than another's, but rather to say it is very important for us simply to be able to have and impart our opinions. In Modern Liberty, a book by Charles Fried, he states that our government can “ treat it's hold on us at the beginning of our lives as a trust discharged by helping us to emerge as free and rational persons, or it can try to prolong it's parental advantage by training us not for independence but for dependence and belonging.” Often times it seems like our society would like us to be shaped into the latter. It is very easy to believe that “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 of the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” is merely a far fetched Libertarian model for a Utopian society that simply can not exist. Instead of seeking truth, liberty, and justice for all, we often become complacent and satisfied with our place in this country feeling that there is nothing we can do to steer this country toward the true realization of the Constitution. It is all too easy to take life as it is, and not strive to seek out and destroy the institutions of injustice that surround us. The tool in this war against oppression of our rights is the First Amendment. All we have to do is continue to use this set of ideals to break down the walls holding us back from becoming the nation that our forefathers wanted us to become.