Freedom for All, or for the Powerful?

If our class were to step back in time and visit an agora - a gathering place for Greek communities to discuss business, social or political qualms, artistic or spiritual matters - well, our class would have a big problem. Although ancient Greece (specifically Athens) is recognized as the birthplace of democracy, the structure the Greeks created was not built to support everyone. While the Ancient Agora of Athens teemed with revolutionary ideology, it wasn't open for everyone to attend. Women weren't considered citizens, but property - they would never be permitted to share their thoughts, ideas, or responses at an agora. Respectable women wouldn't dare show their face at such an honorable place. So the men, then, would certainly create laws and policies that would support everyone, including the women...right?

Unfortunately, the interests of the powerful don't always to align with the interests of everyone; power is often allocated without considering gender identity, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.

Since childhood, Americans have been told they live in the "land of the free." One of the ways our country maintains this freedom for its people is through the protections provided by the first amendment: citizens have freedom of speech and press, as well as religion, assembly, and petition. However, a national amendment does little to address the systems that are in place that prevent unbridled access to these freedoms. Some of the assumed rights of American citizens are recently instituted. Women were granted the right to vote nearly a century ago, over a century after our nation's birth; African Americans were only given their right to vote about forty years after. Gerrymandering is still prevalent to prevent people of a lower socioeconomic station from voting in meaningful ways. American democracy is not founded on the first (and especially not the second) amendment, as the uninformed may claim: it's founded on the hope of securing and maintaining rights for the founders. Those founders were overwhelmingly powerful white men with financial security. And they don't seem overly pleased at the idea of sharing, or making space for women, people of color, or queer folxs.

It's fairly easy to observe that there are people disproportionately and adversely affected if they aren't part of the cultural "norms" of the united states. Consider freedom of religion: on the surface, it appears the United State's democratic structure provides equal opportunities for a variety of religions to worship. But upon an examination of statistics, it becomes clear that the evidence doesn't support that idea. When comparing the number of mosques to the number of churches in the U.S., the difference is staggering: the number of mosques has recently (within the last ten years) risen above two thousand, Christian churches have a projected 380,000 in the nation. If someone hoped to practice their Muslim faith, the likelihood of their ability to find an appropriate place of worship plummets compared to the opportunities given to Christians. Given the fact that our pledge of allegiance has people say "one nation, under God" and claims "in God we trust" on our currency, this shouldn't be surprising. While a Christian might not have a church of their specific denomination within their zip code, it would be easy to attend multiple Bible study groups until you found a community that fits your needs. This is not so for people of the Muslim faith in America, who have far fewer opportunities to connect with people of a similar theology. In fact, a surge of hate crimes in the U.S. cropped up in 2015 with the target on mosques. It would appear that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from suspicion.

We're all familiar with the claim "a few bad apples ruin the batch." However, if this sentiment can apply to demonize all people of the Muslim faith as opposed to the few extremists, why does it not apply to corruption within police forces? Perhaps the answer lies within the system that supports the police, and the types of people who enter the police force. Police officers are overwhelmingly male and white. Consider why that matters when examining law enforcement behavior... The police response was much harsher in regulating Black Lives Matter protests than they were at Trump rallies. This leads me to believe the system is set to benefit the bullies or those who can buy their way in. Marginalized voices have a much harder time reaching a widespread platform. As Americans, we should ask: does the first amendment do enough to support all voices, including those that the system tries to silence? Are the structures in place truly beneficial to everyone?

A less informed American may use their first amendment right to allege their way of life is under attack; this is nothing more than twisting the right to free speech like an overly salted pretzel. Making space for representation in our country is not an attack on a privileged person's way of life. Consider if fundamental American rights are freedoms for all, or if they apply in more significant ways to the powerful, compared to ordinary citizens or marginalized people. Creating opportunities for women, black people, or queer people is integral to having true freedom of speech, and freedom for all.