Religious Liberty is something that our country was founded upon and and something that makes our country great. However with times ever changing, religious liberty can come into conflict with our formal laws and regulations. A very popular public argument about religious liberty is the account of Kim Davis a county clerk from Kentucky. There are two very distinct sides to this argument, the side for religious liberty, and the side for following public law.
The two arguments are just and meant for the right reasons but it is a grey area between faith and law. The religious Liberty side believes that you should not have to violate your religious faith to do your job and that accommodation's should be made possible. The Kim Davis story preaches to all people of faith in our country and furthermore to some people who do not believe in gay marriage. The belief is that if something violates your faith (gay marriage for this instance) you should not have too do it out of both moral and religious beliefs. The religious liberty side has mainly portrayed the opposition as violating religious rights and undermining faith.
However the other side that is preaching public law and abiding by it, believes that it is part of your job and duty as a public employee or public business that you serve and help everyone despite certain disagreements you may have with the person or the lifestyle that they live. This side of the argument isn't aimed at a particular audience but more so everyone who lives in our country and has to abide by the laws of our country. This side of the argument views the other side as just needing to follow the public law and put your religious beliefs second.
Both sides of the argument have very valid points and like I stated previously it puts the whole situation in a grey area between faith and law.
In just a day the story of Ahmed Mohamed became national news. Thanks to ever expanding social media this story spread faster than a wildfire in California.
The two sides of this argument is the side that believes if Ahmed was Jake and not a Muslim he wouldn't have been taken out of school by police, put in handcuffs, and interrogated. The other side believes that Ahmed's homemade clock was very suspicious and could easily be misinterpreted as a bomb and that the school and police department did the right thing. The audience here is the public at large with political affiliation taking a large role in deciding the sides. With this being a highly politicized event the portrayal of either side is somewhat vicious and filled with lots of propaganda. This was even more evident when the President of the US gave Ahmed a formal invitation to the White House because of what had happened to him.With the issue mainly forming around the thought of profiling and stereotyping it is a subject that can be related to anyone who has felt they were. Both sides believe they are right about why everything has happened and that is why it has fueled such a firestorm of reactions. It has not been very positive on either side with how they feel about each other, However as stated before it is hard to know the real motivations of the people involved without being in there shoes. It is an ever beneficial public discussion about the treatment of our fellow Americans.
You raise some important points regarding two of the issues that have dominated news coverage in the last few weeks. I'm not exactly sure of the direction of this post, and whether it is meant for the first or the second blog assignment.
ReplyDeleteI think there will always be cases when an individual's personal beliefs can clash with social or legal responsibilities. One of the important tenets of this country is that an individual cannot be restricted by the government because of their religious beliefs. This sort of "discrimination" seems poised to become the latest arena for a ton of litigation in the coming years.
The clock-kid story was very strange - and is made more strange by his family's Middle Eastern tour and subsequent emigation to Qatar. There were certainly plenty of opinions offered by the professional media - but there wasn't really anything to debate. There weren't charges brought or reforms proposed; it was just an embarrassing situation.
The first blog assignment was meant to focus on an ethical breach, and the second blog was meant to give you the chance to compare strategies and tactics used by contrasting positions. Please let me know how I can help.