Freedom

Unite is a common word the comes to mind when debating the themes of Boyz in the Hood written by John Singleton and Black Freedom Fighters in Steel by Ruth Needleman. Boyz in the Hood is a film that follows the lives of a group of young African Americans living in South Central Los Angeles, California. Each main character faces some common struggle modern day children and teens face today. Their fate relies on what they decide to do about their common struggle. In Black Freedom Fighters in Steel, you glimpse into the lives of five men connected by one aspect of their lives.

They also must do something in order to survive as blue collar workers during the 20th century. Both these works have one common theme if not more, these boys and these men had to unite together in close friendship and within a union. Boyz in the Hood follows one particular group in South Central Los Angeles. Trey Styles along with his friends Ricky, Doughboy, and others all grew up in the same neighborhood living with various struggles, some in common. Trey moved to live with his dad at the age of 10, Ricky and Doughboy, half-brothers, lived across the street from him in a single parent household.

Ricky was raised on the hope and spirit of his mother to be a football star. His brother Doughboy was not given the same hope and dreams from his mother. Trey was raised differently than his friends because he was being raised by a respectable male, Furious Styles. Furious helped prepare Trey for what the future may have in store for him, especially when living in the so called, “ghetto. ” Although these characters were raised differently they still found strength in numbers, and stuck close together at a very young age.

One example is when they are walking down the tracks and Ricky gets his football hustled from him. Doughboy tries to stick up for his brother even though he fails. They all stood together during that scene when they could have easily been killed by these older guys. Darren, known as Doughboy, grows up deciding to become a part of a street gang, or group. Instead of avoiding the temptation of violence and the dangers of the lifestyle, he becomes sucked right into it. Although not a positive decision, in reality to some it feels like the only choice. The need for protection is essential to survive.

By joining groups, people in various neighborhoods across America, find often false sanctuary and more violence. Darren kept close ties with his friends. They united when it came to protecting themselves from other various groups. One incident would be when all the teens had their cars parked up and down the street and another group walks by and knocks Ricky. When Ricky begins confrontation with the other groups, they all join in. Another incident is when Ricky is shot; although they weren’t all there when it happened, Darren and his friends all felt a need to avenge Ricky’s death, collectively.

Trey was raised in a very strict and wise household. His mother was a well off business woman who took care of herself and her son until he reached a stage in his life where he was angry. Furious his father took Trey in and taught him specific values and self-discipline. With these values Trey made decisions opposite of a lot of his friends. He took a more optimistic route about living where he lived. He was aware of what goes on but he never involved himself in it. Trey who was close to his friends didn’t completely comply with them.

Ricky and Trey both had the most chances of leaving their town or living past age 25. While Darren and their other friends involved themselves in gang related activities, Trey and Ricky both avoided it. Still because they had all been friends for so long they still stuck together. When Ricky was shot and killed by another group, they all collectively went after that group. Specifically Trey joined them with this activity because he felt strongly about the issue at hand. He had lost his best friend and Darren had lost his brother.

Although Trey didn’t fully commit to the retaliation, he stuck by Darren’s side and comforted his friend. In Black Freedom Fighters in Steel five men are profiled explaining the struggles around working in Steel and within the union. In the beginning we hear about George Kimbley, who signed up for Steelworker’s Organizing Committee as the first African-American. In order for African-Americans to face their struggles of poor working conditions, poor pay, and lack of job opportunities, they had to connect with the majority.

George Kimbley knew that in order to be in the union and make somewhat of a difference, you would have to get people to trust you. What Kimbley means is that white men within the union have to become use to you and learn that their misconceptions are wrong. Many African Americans felt they did not belong within the union because they would be harassed and discriminated against just like they would on the mill floor. Kimbley was one the many that went out and persuaded black steelworkers to join the union, SWOC.

He knew that in order to seek change they must become a part of something bigger. A separate committee for Blacks seemed unreasonable at the specific time. Kimbley felt that in order to meet the goals long term we must first integrate with others so they feel less threatened when requesting solutions. When struggling alongside people opposite than themselves, African-Americans felt a stronger need to cope with feelings that came along with integration and discrimination. Many residents within small African American communities in Gary, Indiana kept close ties.

They all went to the same church, their kids attended same schools, and they went to the same bars and kept in touch. They had a strong sense of community amongst themselves. Many men played cards together, such as George Kimbley and Jesse Reese. These men knew the importance of joining the union in order to receive if not equal better working conditions. They networked, one man would sign a friend up, and then his friend would sign up someone else. Networking, educating and discussing were various ways to get the community pro-union.

One specific example is how the amount of SWOC cards that came in signed by black workers stunned white SWOC participants. This proves that networking was working. Women also played a role in using their community to discuss issues such as organizing. Chain recruiting was widely used. This was used for example by an organizer. He and his wife would throw a dinner party and discuss various issues. By engaging in conversation they could relate on different complaints the other couples may have and convince them to join the union and inform others.

By passing on information about the union the African-American demographic within the steel companies and union were more likely to increase. More membership in the union would allow more chances of bargaining and promotions for minorities. Another example of uniting in Black Freedom Fighters in Steel is through the smaller committees that formed within the union. Many people such as, George Kimbley, felt that this would hinder the positive movement for African-American workers within the union. Others were tired of waiting for change.

They organized themselves within the union into committees such as the Eureka Club, established in 1952 by Curtis Strong, Arthur Adams, and Sylvester Palmer. (p 84) Curtis Strong worked in one of the dirtiest yet most important part of the mill. He explains that the coke plant was an essential step in steel production. If he and others shut down their department then they could shut down the whole mill. This was a very strategic plan in order to get the foreman and department heads to listen. One example is when Strong took a stand against a practice the company used when hiring new workers into the plant.

If the coke plant needed a maintenance worker or apprentice, they would use Virginia Street Hiring. The company would send “appropriate” workers, meaning white, for the specific jobs. Many current black employees were overlooked due to this practice. When Strong requested that coke plant workers be allowed to apply for apprenticeships and was denied, a wildcat strike broke out. Soon after Coke plant workers were able to bid on apprenticeships and better jobs. This was more than what the Steelworker’s Organizing Committee had done for job bidding.

Instead of turning to the bigger union, they used their small collective to make a difference for specifically African-American steelworkers. Both these works demonstrate a theme that shows collectiveness. In order to be strong, certain people must ban together, which has happened in history so often when it comes to people facing common struggles. Later on in Black Freedom Fighters in Steel they discuss how things have changed, beginning in the 1980’s. Many people have become too satisfied and have stopped fighting for more. I believe this can play into the themes of both the book and Boyz in the Hood.

Briefly, today the world around us has everyone convinced that things can’t get any better than this, but can they? When it comes to employment there is only so far we can go, but what about our communities? In the film you see a community that has been ignored. By being neglected from society, things may become worse. Young teen’s today struggle with constant violence and retaliation. Poverty is proven to cause an increase in violence. By ignoring cities and allowing children to suffer academically we are throwing them into violence. This is also discussed in the book.

Gary, Indiana which has been dismantled ever since the steel industry took a backseat. Many people living within the community lost their jobs, which affected the cities revenue. Schools are in poor condition which can be true for South Central Los Angeles also. Schools have a strong influence when it comes to discipline and respect. When we allow schools to deteriorate we lose those values within the curriculum. Few, but not all African-American’s have motivation to fight poverty. In time we may see this minority unionize again to better their communities in society.

Boyz in the Hood and Black Freedom Fighters in Steel seemed quite opposite to one another besides the involvement of African-American characters. After reading more into the book, the theme becomes apparent and can also be applied to the film. That theme being that in order to better life people must organize and come together, whether for good or bad. Boyz in the Hood has also had a place in my heart as a great film, but now I can respect it more after putting it in a new light. As for the book, I haven’t been interested in Unions, but I did enjoy the stories the five characters brought to it.

The United States promotes that freedom is a right deserved by all humanity. Throughout the history of America the government has found ways to deprive selected people this right by race, gender, class and in other ways as well for its own benefit. This is a boundary of freedom. Boundaries of freedom outline who is able to enjoy their freedom and who isn’t. These people alter with time and as history unfolds. Slavery and the journey of their freedom was a big part of the foundation of the United States. At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln’s goal was to restore the Union and planned on keeping slavery present in the states.

African American’s journey to freedom and what freedom means was a long and turbulent one. With the British colonies being established in the New World, a source of cheap labor was needed. The Slave Trade was introduced into the colonies from Africa. Slaves were an important part of the success of this new economy being built. 7. 7 million African Americans were estimated to be transported to the New World between 1492 to 1820. They were treated like other goods and were sold through the triangular trade route across the Atlantic. Slavery had its advantages to Englishmen.

They couldn’t claim the protections the English law offered, their time of work never ended and their children were born into slavery and owned by the master as well. They also had encountered many diseases known to Europe and were less likely to capitulate to diseases. Slavery began to replace indentured servants on the Chesapeake plantations. To the normal plantation owner, it became more economical to buy labor for life, or a slave that you owned until they died. Slaves could be sold, passed on to family members, and leased. No black could own arms or put their hands on a white or else they were faced with extreme consequences.

Also, if off the plantation, a white person could ask a black to provide their freedom certificate or a note of permission to be off the plantation from the master they also faced extreme consequences. Slaves were like children to whites. They could not rebel without repercussions and could not betray or leave their owner. They had free labor that could not go anywhere; slavery was a huge benefit and was like a dream for a plantation owner. They were essential to production and cultivation of crops and plantations. By 1700, slavery was existent in all of the colonies.

The House of Burgesses realized that slaves were an extremely important part of the labor force and therefore, to the economy. A new slave code was enacted in 1705 stating that slaves were property of their owners and to the white community. Slaves were the legal responsibility of the master and if they started to rebel it was the master’s obligation to keep them in line. Slavery also brought a new division of people to the New World. The slaves that were transported to the colonies for labor were not all from the same culture, race or society.

They spoke different languages, had diverse customs and had many various religions. Many of these people would have never come in contact with each other if not for this slave trade. An overall stereotype of African’s was what they now where known as. There cultures and ideologies emerged into a single background and ancestry for people born into this lifestyle and they no longer came from different tribes or kinships. There new culture was based on African traditions, English fundamentals and American standards. This could almost be considered as the first installment of America becoming known as a ‘melting pot’.

Slavery was a huge part of the development of the New World and to the rise of its commercial supremacy. In Britain the profits from the slave trade encouraged the growth of ports, banking, ship building and helped to finance the industrial revolution. It also boosted the colonies wealth and set the foundation for the strong economical society it would later become. As a historian would later transcribe: “The growth and prosperity of the emerging society of free colonial British America … were achieved as a result of slave labor”.

In earlier days, agreement was built on a very classic and simple basis: it is concluded at the moment that the acceptance of an offer takes place and that is all. In consequence, equal parties were non-existent and stronger parties had the possibility to impose unfair and domineering conditions upon those who were weak and vulnerable. It is in this context that both legislations and courts agreed that State action was indispensable to ensure fairness among individual parties, in an era where the exercise of law of freedom were extremely restricted.

In today’s English law, freedom of contract is one the foundation of contract law. The existence of freedom of contract requires three main considerations: the freedom to contract or not to contract, the freedom to choose with whom to contract, and the freedom to decide the terms of the contract. Thus parties are totally free to engage or not to engage in agreements. However, freedom of contract can fail to have the desired or expected effect in contracts where power relations are not equal. The stronger party can impose its “will” to the weaker party.

In order to deal with any potential conflict that can arise from this matter, English legal systems has set up rules ensuring the effective and fair exercise of freedom of contract. This essay will discuss and examine those rules in question, established by the English law in order to effectively balance freedom of contract and fairness between the contracting parties as well as fair contractual terms. And also on the other hand limits of freedom of contract will be exposed. Freedom of contract, as its appellation suggests, has a strong relationship with contract.

In order to identify this relationship, it is important to understand what is meant by “contract” and the rules governing it. In English law, a contract is a legally binding agreement reached on a set of promises (or obligations) and specific terms. The validity of any contract requires 4 main features: an offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations. Thus, when one party (the offeror) makes an offer which the other (offeree) accepts, then agreement is concluded.

However, the mere fact of an agreement is insufficient for a contract to be completely valid. This implies that a party must promise to give or do something for the other. This idea of exchanging promises is known as “consideration” and is an essential requisite of any valid contract. In Currie v Misa(1875) it (consideration) was held to constitute a benefit to one party or a detriment to the other. For instance, when a bottle of wine is bought from a shop, the benefit received is the bottle of wine, and the detriment is the money paid to the shop.

Yet it is important to take into concern the rules governing consideration. First of all, consideration must not be in the past(as mentioned in the a. This rule suggests that if one party willingly performs an act, and the other party then makes a promise the consideration said to be in the past. Therefore past consideration is regarded as no consideration at all. For instance, a pregnant woman named Julie, knowing that her neighbour, Lucy, is concerned about her health, offers to do the housework for her.

This takes Lucy tremendous amount of time to do, and Julie is so content with the result that she promises to pay Lucy ? 30 for her effort. If Julie fails to pay, Lucy will not have the possibility to sue for breach of contract as Julie’s promise to pay was after the completion of the work. The fact of this case is supported by the case of Re McArdle(1951,CA) in which it was held that no valid contract existed since the home improvements were past consideration; they had been carried out before any promise to pay had been made.

Another rule is that consideration must move from the promisee which is very similar to the concept of law of privity. So for instance if A makes a promises to B, the promise will only be enforceable if B can equally show that he has provided consideration for A’s promise. This rule clearly demonstrates the fairness (among parties) of the doctrine of consideration. Finally, consideration must be sufficient but need not to be adequate. This rule stipulates that a good consideration must be of some value but there is not necessity for a bargain to be of adequate value.

For example, if someone is willing to sell his Ferrari for ? 1, the contract will not be in vain due to lack of consideration and therefore will be sufficient. In this case, Courts will not measure the adequacy of the consideration (the fact that a Ferrari is offered to be sold at only ? 1) as it is up to one party to decide whether or not he agrees with the other party promises. The contract in English law enhances principle of freedom of contract.

Indeed, the terms of the contract is freely determined and agreed by the parties. However, there are various circumstances in which additional terms may be implied into the agreement. The aim of implied terms is often to provide a supplement to a contractual agreement in the interest of making bargain more effective, to achieve fairness between the parties and to alleviate hardship. Term may be implied by custom. Here it is suggested that a contract must always be examined in the light of its surrounding commercial context.

So the parties automatically assume that sometimes their contract will be subject to the customs of a particular locality or trade and therefore do not deal specifically with the matter in their contract. One of the cases illustrating this is Hutton v Warren(1836). A term may equally be implied into a contract y Act of Parliament in the form of statutes. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, ss 12-15 for instance, a seller automatically assumes certain obligations to the buyer as a result of terms which are automatically implied in every contract regulated by the Act.

The seller is required by statute to promise that he has lawful authority to transfer ownership of the goods(s12)(the seller would for example break this term if it turns out that the goods were stolen);that the goods being sold will match the description he provided the buyer(s13)(for instance a shirt described as 100 per cent cotton should not contain man-made fibres); that the quality of the goods being sold will satisfy the buyer(s14(2)); that the good will be suitable for any purpose specified by the buyer(s 14(3)); and that the goods being sold will match any sample shown to the buyer prior to the contract being made(s 15).

Breach of any of these terms will put the buyer in a strong position and be given the option to be discharged from the contract or alternatively carry on with the contract and claim damages for the breach. This will lead us to the concept of remedies mentioned in the following part. In English contract law, a crucial aspect of the contractual relationship is the enforcement of the contract, as the obligation that pact must be kept firmly by parties is considered as the backbone of any contractual relationship.

However, a problem can occur if a contract is not adequately performed and one of the parties renounces to perform its obligations. This is where the concept of non-performance and the remedies available to the injured party become applicable. Breach of contract arises from the non-respect of the pact (or terms) agreed between parties. The aggrieved party is then given the to claim for a remedy resulting from any quantifiable loss or harm suffered. Damage (financial compensation) is the most basic remedy available to the innocent party.

In today business environment, it is not rare for the parties to agree in advance the damages that will be payable in the occurrence of a breach of contract. These damages are referred to as liquidated damages. An illustration of liquidated damages is the charges imposed for cancelling a flight or the booking of a hotel room. But sometimes, there is a temptation for a party with stronger trading power to try imposing a penalty clause (punitive payment for the non-performance of a term or condition) as demonstrated in Wilson v. Love (1896) case.

Other remedies such as quantum damages and injunction may be granted at the discretion of the court as part of its equitable jurisdiction. So, as mentioned above, remedies is all about compensating the aggrieved party for causing him loss or harm. This can be avoided by the consideration of the prevailing rules of freedom of contract. In other words, Freedom of contract allowing individual parties to freely contract or not to, and no one being forced to do it , whoever therefore who gives a contractual promise must then keep it.

Or on the contrary case, as described in earlier parts can be constrained by legal authorities to honour its commitment or compensate the other party. However, performance of a contract becomes sometimes impossible due to the circumstances beyond the control of either of the parties and not due to their fault. The legal term referring to this situation is frustration. An example of this unforeseen event is illustrated in the case of Taylor v Caldwell (1863) in which it was held that contract was impossible to perform due to an external and unforeseen event.

Consequences are that the contract is killed and parties discharged from further liability. This limits the exercise of freedom of contract in a sense that the agreement formed by the parties is nullified, regardless individual parties will. Another limitation of freedom of contract is that the choice of other contracting party is not always free. For example, an employer is not totally free to hire the person of his choice. The fact that insurance contracts are sometimes made ?? obligatory by parties equally render the exercise of freedom of contract limited, as concerned parties did not freely choose to contract with an insurance company.

So far, this paper has been about the relationship between the exercise of freedom of contract and law of contract. However not only is freedom of contract concerned with contract law but also with another component of the English private law, which is tort law. A tort is a civil wrong. In other words, it refers to the liability of a person who causes harm to another with the obligation to repair the damages suffered by the victim. An example of tort is damage to commercial interests, e. g. inducement of breach of contract.

Also known as tortious interference, inducement of breach of contract arise where the wrongdoer convinces a party to breach the contract against the claimant, or where the wrongdoer prevents one party from performing his obligations(agreed with the other party), thus stopping the claimant from receiving the performance promised. Furthermore, after mentioning the existence of a duty of care, which is an element required making negligence claim (concerned with a wrongdoer’s careless conduct which cause damage or loss to the defendant), the claimant (the injured party) can prove that this duty has been broken by the defendant (the other party).

Hence the close relationship between duty of care and the requisites of freedom of contract in the sense that if parties freely agree to contract (including the terms of it), then, it is suggested, that they owe a duty of care to each other because the careless conduct (which can affect the contract) of one party can prevent the other one from receiving the performance promised, regardless to the external factor that caused the misconduct of the blamed party. This fact is supported by the case of Garret v.

Taylor (1620) in which the court upheld a judgment for the claimant. To conclude, the purpose of this essay has been to describe and make a connection between law of contract as well as law of torts and freedom of contract. Thus, English legal systems have established multiple rules of conduct from different parties to a contract in order to ensure fairness between them. Henceforth, contracting parties are given freedom to contract with whoever they want, including the terms of the contracts.

Also, thanks to rules such as of duty of care, or of doctrine of remedies, an injured party is now given the possibility to claim for compensation of loss or harm caused by the blamed party, who will be then obliged by legal authorities to repair the damages caused to the aggrieved party due to non-respect of the rules established. In the end, it must be acknowledge that English Law has stroke an appropriate balance between freedom of contract and fairness. References:

Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153; (1875-76) LR 1 App Cas 554:Definition of consideration Garret v. Taylor, 79 Eng. Rep. 485 (K. B. 1620): Tortious interference Hutton v Warren (1836) 1 M;W 460:Implied terms Re McArdle(1951,CA ):Past consideration being unacceptable Sale of Goods Act 1979, ss 12-15 : Statutory implied terms Taylor v Caldwell (1863) 3 B ; S 826; 122 ER 309; [1863] EWHC QB J1: impossibility of performance of contract Wilson v. Love (1896) : Liquidated damages

Despite a difference of around two millennia, or 2000 years, the claims to freedom of the Greek philosopher Socrates and the German Leader of the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther lend themselves to both similarities and differences.

Although there are more differences than similarities, the two works have both not only expressed the dreams and aspirations of these two great man but especially changed the societies in which they lived, although gradually.

This paper will discuss the similarities between Socrates’ claims in the Apology and those of Luther in Concerning Christian Liberty. This paper will discuss the similarities between Socrates’ claims to freedom in the Apology and those of Luther in Concerning Christian Liberty.

Similarities

The claims of Socrates and Luther to certain freedoms share a few similarities.

An Exhortation to Oppose Established Institutions. Both Socrates’ and Luther’s claims for freedom exhorted people to oppose established institutions. While Socrates tried to undermine the immoral ways of Athenian society, Luther wanted to expose the defects in the theological bases of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Socrates, on one hand, criticized Athenian society when he said, “If there were a law at Athens, such as there is in other cities, that a capital cause should not be decided in one day, then I believe that I should have convinced you” (Apology).

And somehow he implied a certain attachment of Athenians to money when he said, “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private.” (Apology)

On the other hand, Luther exhorted Christians and Catholics to question the theological basis of the Catholic doctrines. He expressed his opposition when he mentioned every time he mentioned that works were not a path to spiritual salvation but only faith and faith alone. Aside from this, he mentioned that:

“…it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done through the body and in the body.” (Luther)

Differences

The claims of Socrates and Luther to certain freedoms also lend themselves to a number of differences from the notion of their freedoms to the way they have presented their claims.

Notion of Freedom. Socrates and Luther were both fighting for different kinds of freedoms.

First of all, one of the freedoms that Socrates was fighting for was more of a freedom of expression, or specifically a general freedom to question the logic that operated behind the Athenian justice system. The Athenian Meletus accused Socrates of being “a doer of evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and has other new divinities of his own” (Apology).

To this accusation, Socrates’ sarcastically claims his freedom of expression by saying, “If my offence is unintentional, the law has no cognizance of unintentional offences; you ought to have taken me privately, and warned and admonished me” (Apology). This is the more personal freedom that Socrates was fighting for in the course of his defense. Socrates proved Meletus’ illogic several times during his defense so Socrates was indirectly making here a claim for the freedom of the mind through logic.

As for the other freedom that Socrates seemed to have been fighting for was the freedom of philosophy. This freedom was implied when Socrates said, Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy…” (Apology). Such a statement was naturally taken by the Athenian court as a defiance of the authority of the state that defined obedience to God as obedience to the laws rather than to one’s philosophy.

Furthermore, Socrates’ claim for this freedom and his defense of it in Plato’s Apology was more of a defense of personal convictions considering that Socrates himself was on trial at the time that he declared his claims for this freedom.

Based on the aforementioned points, the idea of freedom of Socrates was different from that proposed by Luther. Luther’s ideas were more on religion rather than on logic and philosophy. Luther expressed the nature of the freedom that he claims when he said, “For faith alone, and the efficacious use of the word of God, brings salvation” (Luther). This therefore is a freedom from works, and is explicitly stated by Luther when he said, “…this faith cannot consist at all with works…”(Luther) and that “…no work can cleave to the word of God…” (Luther).

Religious freedom occupies a special place in contemporary political discussions. It should not. This is not because religious freedom is not important but because it is no more and no less important than other forms of freedom of conscience, belief and practice. 2 Many believers point out that faith plays a unique role in their lives. That is often true. Those atheists who dismiss belief in God as no more credible than belief in Santa Claus or in fairies miss the point.

Religion is more than an intellectual exercise or a matter of logic; it often has, for believers, a vital social and spiritual function. But acknowledging the vital and unique role of faith in the lives of believers does not commit us to providing it with a privileged position in society. 3 The reason that religious freedom has a special place in contemporary political debate is historical. Ideas of tolerance and of freedom of expression developed in Europe from the seventeenth century onwards primarily within a religious framework.

Questions of toleration and expression were at heart questions of how, and how far, the state, and the established church, should accommodate religious dissent. We can see this in the arguments of John Locke, whose Letter Concerning Toleration is a key text in the development of modern liberal ideas about freedom of expression and worship. Locke’s starting point was the insistence that the duty of every individual was to seek his own salvation. The means to do so were his religious beliefs and the ability openly to worship.

The power of the political authorities could not rightfully extend over either sphere. Written at a time when Europe was rent by tempestuous religious strife, and when intolerance and persecution were the norm, Locke’s was a powerful argument for religious freedom. It was also an exceedingly narrow conception of liberty. Locke’s toleration was rooted primarily in the desire to extend freedom of worship and theological discussion to nonconformist congregations and placed little emphasis on wider issues of freedom of thought or conscience.

Indeed Locke was emphatic in refusing to extend toleration to many other groups. Neither Catholics not atheists were, in Locke’s view, deserving of tolerance, the former because they gave their allegiance to a ‘foreign prince’, the latter because their opinions were ‘contrary to human society’ and ‘to the preservation of civil society’. 4 Locke’s near contemporary, the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, whose views influenced the Radical Enlightenment, proposed a different concept of tolerance.

Spinoza’s starting point, was not, as it was for Locke, the salvation of one’s soul, or the coexistence of churches, but the enhancement of freedom, and the quest for individual liberty and freedom of expression. All attempts to curb free expression, he insisted, not only curtailed legitimate freedom but was futile. ‘No man… can give up his freedom to judge and think as he pleases, and everyone is by absolute natural right master of his own thoughts’, Spinoza wrote, so ‘it follows that utter failure will attend any attempt in a state to force men to speak only as prescribed by the sovereign despite their different and opposing opinion.

’ ’The right of the sovereign, both in the religious and secular spheres’, he concluded, ‘should be restricted to men’s actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he wishes and say what he thinks’. It is a more inclusive vision of freedom than Locke’s, and a more useful starting point – and conclusion – when thinking about contemporary freedom. 5 Modern ideas of freedom and tolerance are usually seen, particularly in the West, as having derived from Locke. In fact they draw upon both Locke and Spinoza. The US First Amendment owes much to Spinoza’s conception of freedom.

Even in Europe, where freedom of expression is construed in narrower terms, Spinoza’s influence remains important, if unacknowledged. However, despite the broadening of the conception of liberty and tolerance, the idea that freedom of religion is a special freedom, an idea that derives primarily from Locke, remains entrenched. 6 Today, we live in very different world from that in which concepts of religious freedom first developed. Religion is no longer the crucible within which political and intellectual debates take place.

Questions of freedom and tolerance are not about how the dominant religious establishment should respond to dissenting religious views, but about the degree to which society should tolerate, and the law permit, speech and activity that might be offensive, hateful, harmful to individuals or undermine national security. We can now see more clearly that religious freedom is not a special kind of liberty but one of a broader set of freedoms. If we were think about religious freedom from first principles today, it would not have a special place compared to other forms of freedom of conscience, belief, assembly or action.

7 Whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be complete freedom to express them, short of inciting violence or other forms of physical harm to others. Whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be freedom to assemble to promote them. And whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be freedom to act upon those beliefs, so long as in so doing one neither physically harms another individual without their consent, nor transgresses that individual’s rights in the public sphere.

These should be the fundamental principles by which we judge the permissibility of any belief or act, whether religious or secular. 8 Many on both sides of the debate about religious freedom continue to treat religion as special. Many atheists want to deny religion the rights accorded to others forms of belief. Many religious believers want to retain privileges for religion. Both are wrong. 9 Some atheists argue that secularism requires that religion be kept out of the public sphere.

It is an argument that cannot be right any more than the claim that the views of racists, conservatives, communists or gay activists must be kept out of the public sphere. A secular space cannot be one in which religion is not permitted to be present. It is, rather, a space in which one religion is granted no advantage over another, nor over any secular philosophy or ideology. It must also be one, however, in which no religion is disadvantaged with respect to another religion, or with respect to secular philosophies and ideologies. 10

Many atheists demand also that religious symbols be banned in the public sphere. Many states and corporations have imposed such bans, from the refusal to allow the wearing of the cross in the workplace to the outlawing of the burqa in public places. Such bans are infringements of the basic freedoms set out in #7. An employer has every right to ban kinds of clothing that might be, say, dangerous in a particular workplace. He or she also has the right, in certain circumstances, and within limits, to insist that employees wear a particular uniform, or to desist from wearing something inappropriate.

But there should be no general ban on particular forms of clothing or adornment, and certainly no general ban on specifically religious clothing or symbols. 11 The real dilemmas with religious freedom arise out of questions not of beliefs or symbols but of practices. Many beliefs, religious and secular, imply particular practices. The belief that homosexuality is a sin requires that one refrain from gay relationships or gay sex. The belief that life begins at conception requires that one does not have an abortion or help anyone else to do so.

And so on. As a society we should tolerate as far as is possible the desire of people to live according to their conscience. But that toleration ends when someone acting upon his or her conscience causes harm to another without consent, or infringes another’s genuine rights. 12 It is not just in the case of religion that there is a strong relationship between belief and practice. Racists, communists, Greens, New Age mystics – all could claim that their beliefs enforce upon them certain actions or practices.

We do not, however, allow racists, communists, Greens, or New Age mystics to act upon their beliefs if in so doing they harm others or deny them their legitimate rights. A racist pub owner cannot bar black people from his pub, however deep-set his beliefs. It would be a criminal offence for Greens to destroy a farmer’s field of legally grown GM crops, however strongly they might feel about such agriculture. There is a line, in other words, that cannot be crossed even if conscience requires one to. That line should be in the same place for religious believers as for non-believers.

Society should accommodate as far as is possible any action genuinely required by conscience, but not where such acts harms another or infringes their rights. Of course, a religious believer might claim that he or she faces a different kind of compulsion to that felt by a racist, a communist or anyone else attached to secular beliefs. He or she may feel commanded by God to act in a particular way. It may well be true that a believer feels a different kind of compulsion. But the reason for which someone feels compelled to act in a particular way is not necessarily relevant to whether or not such acts should be legally permitted. 13

The fact that acts of conscience may sometimes have to be curbed does not mean that in these cases there is a ‘conflict of rights’. Just as there is a right to free speech but no right not to be offended, so there is a right not to be harmed and to equal treatment, but no right to harm or to discriminate. This is essential to protect religious freedom. An atheist bar-owner should have no right, whatever his conscience may say, to bar people of faith, any more than a Christian bar-owner has the right to bar gays. Such curbs on acts of conscience simply mean that we live not but together in a crowded society.

14 How would the argument so far throw light on recent conflicts over matters of religious freedom? Should religions have the right to prevent the publication of cartoons or books or plays that are deemed offensive? No. Religious freedom requires that people of faith be allowed to speak or act in ways that might offend others. It does not that require others do not cause offence or promote blasphemy. Is it legitimate for a state to ban the burqa? It is not. Wearing a burqa neither harms, nor discriminates against, others.

Of course, one might well believe that the burqa harms the woman who wears it and is an expression of discrimination against women. A liberal society accepts, however, that individuals should free to make choices that may not be in their interest and that, to liberal eyes, demean them. This applies even to particularly distasteful expressions of degradation, such as the wearing of the burqa. If women are forced to wear the burqa against their will, the law should protect them against that coercion. It should not, however, impose a ban on those who have chosen to wear the burqa.

Some suggest that burqas cause harm because they may pose security problems, or be incompatible with the needs of particular jobs. Such practical problems can usually be solved on a case-by-case basis without the need for draconian legislation. Should an employee be allowed to wear a cross at work? In almost every case the answer should be ‘Yes’. There may be a pragmatic case for, say, banning loose chains that in certain workplaces may be dangerous; but it is difficult to see what right an employer has simply to ban the wearing of a cross as a religious symbol.

Should gay marriage be legalized? Yes. This is a matter both of secular equality and of religious freedom. On the one hand, the state should not exclude gays from the civil institution of marriage simply because of religious hostility. On the other, some faith groups wish to bless to gay marriage. For the state to deny them that right because other faith groups disagree would be to undermine religious freedom. What the state should not do is to force religious bodies to accept or consecrate gay marriage. Should a Catholic adoption agency be allowed to turn away gay prospective parents?

If the agency receives public funding, or performs a service on behalf of the state, then the answer is ‘No’. It would then be legitimate for the state to insist that the agency does not discriminate, despite Catholic views on homosexuality. If, however, it is a private agency – if it is simply performing a service for Catholic parents who subscribe to its views on homosexuality – then the answer should be ‘Yes’. Should Christian bed and breakfast owners be allowed to turn away gays? Such owners, even if they are turning their own home into a b’n’b, are providing a service from which a gay couple could reasonably expect equal treatment.

The answer, therefore, is ‘No’. Should Catholic-run hospitals or schools be forced to give employees health insurance that includes free contraception? This is, of course, a source of major controversy in the USA. The answer is ‘Yes’. This is not a matter of religious freedom, but of employee rights. Churches are not being forced to provide contraception. In their role as secular employers, they are being asked to provide employee benefits that all employers must provide. To exempt Church-run organizations would be to deny those benefits to a particular group of employees. 15

Having said all this, many of these conflicts would be better resolved through the pragmatic use of common sense than through the strict application of principle, particularly when those principles remain socially contested. A religious believer should not normally have the legal right to discriminate. But if it is possible to arrange matters so that a believer can act according to conscience without causing harm or discrimination to others, then it might be worthwhile doing so. In principle, a Christian marriage registrar should expect to have to perform gay civil partnerships, whatever their religious beliefs.

However, it might make pragmatic sense to roster others to perform ceremonies for gay couples, not because we should accept prejudice – prejudice, whether religious or secular in form, should always be challenged – but in acknowledgement of the fact that genuine social conflict exists on this issue. We should not give an inch to bigotry. Someone whose ‘conscience’ would not allow them to work with gays, or to marry Jews, should clearly not be indulged. Nevertheless, many oppose gay partnerships or marriages as a matter of conscience and not simply through homophobia (albeit that ‘conscience’ can, of course, often be a cover for homophobia).

We can both challenge such attitudes and accept that on matters of genuine conscience, a little leeway or accommodation that allows someone to live by their principles may be desirable. The law should not make any such accommodation. But as individuals, or as organizations, it may be wise to, though not at the cost of causing harm, allowing discrimination or endorsing bigotry. 16 There are exceptional cases in which we should set aside these basic principles. A marriage registrar should be expected in principle, if not necessarily in practice, to perform gay civil partnerships.

But we should not expect a doctor or a nurse, even in principle, to perform an abortion, if they feel to do so is against their beliefs. Whatever we may think of the belief that life begins at conception, it would be unreasonable in the extreme to expect those who do hold that belief to commit what they consider to be murder. 17 A pragmatic approach to matters of religious conscience is neither a sign of ‘weakness’ nor a matter of ‘accommodating’ the devil. Standing by political principle is vitally important, including the principle that people should have the right to act upon their conscience if possible.

Why is that principle important? Because we recognize with Spinoza that ‘No man can give up his freedom to judge and think as he pleases, and everyone is by absolute natural right master of his own thoughts’. To recognize that is to recognize also that it is better if people are persuaded to act in a particular way, by exercising their freedom to judge and think, than being forced to do so by the power of the state. There are times when the state has to wield the big stick, particularly if ‘acts of conscience’ lead to physical harm or discrimination.

But such occasions, as a matter of principle, should be minimized as far as possible. To be pragmatic in this matter is to keep to one’s principles. 18 The aim of rethinking religious freedom is to strengthen, not weaken, it. It is to establish it not as a special privilege arising out of the turmoil of seventeenth century Europe but as one of a set of indispensible freedoms rooted in the needs and possibilities of the twenty-first century world. To defend religious freedom in this manner is not to defend religion. It is to defend freedom.

In the latter part of the 1990s, the region of Kosovo gained international media attention when the armies of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic were deployed with the purpose of crushing the desire of the majority Albanian initiative for independence. In the chronology of the 20th century, the two opposing sides in the country, Serbs and the native Albanians had launched attempts to wrest control of the volatile region. Yugoslavia was then known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes before the onset of the First World War. In 1929, the state was reconstituted to the name Yugoslavia. Though an ethnically diverse autonomous state, tribal irritation was still very prevalent. During the leadership of Josip Broz Tito, the province of Kosovo and Vojvodina was accorded autonomy by the government. But after Tito’s demise, the country began to disintegrate. It should be noted that the Serbians constituted only a small fraction of the entire population, the province of Kosovo was held in high reverence by the Serbs.

To the Serbs, Kosovo was the bassinet of the heritage, erudition and identity. In the constitution of the former Yugoslavia, the fundamental law set the parameters of the state of Kosovo as a semi-independent province of Serbia. The movement for independence began to gain steam in the 1980s with the demise of the Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito. The portents of trouble in the Kosovo province started in the powder keg town of Mitrovica. Two hand grenades were lobbed at the two world bodies’ buildings. The first grenade exploded in the vicinity of a United Nations edifice, the other failing to explode at the new offices of the European Union delegation. In the former Yugoslav capital city of Belgrade, protestors hurled rocks and destroyed windows in the United States embassy office as crowd control forces attempted to defend against an estimated 1,000 protestors. The US embassy was not totally caught off guard. The American diplomatic building was empty at the time the rioters began their assault on the complex. Many foreign states had been wary that the security authorities in the country would do much of anything to try and establish control of the situation. The primary factor that became the trigger in the minds of the protesters was by twin events. First, the rioters were incensed by the promulgation of the Kosovo province of their independence

The other was the rapid action of the United States and many other countries to officially recognize the new nation. In a moment, history was made for the people of Kosovo. Premier Hashim Thaci declared that the newly independent nation would be founded on respecting the rights of all native groups in the province. In the 1990s various movements for the securing of independence were established on the principles of nonviolent aggression. In 1991, tribal Albanian leaders had on their won declared independence for their state. In the summer of 1998, many Albanians were beginning to stage protest actions against the authority of Serbia. As the increasing protests grew, Milosevic sent police and army contingents in the region to destroy the independence movement. 1999 saw the international trying to broker and finalize an accord for the restoration of order in the troubled region. The accord was accepted with reservations by the tribal Albanians but was turned down by Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Basque: protecting a language and a way of life

If the struggle in Kosovo was centered on the conflict of losing a cultural and national center, the Euskera-speaking Basques have been trying to defend their use of their language. For many millennia, the people of the Basque region in Spain have focused the main primer of their struggle on the preservation of their language and culture. But the history of the Basques as a people has been a mystery to many. Even their language, Euskera, is not connected with any of the Indo-European language groups spoken in the rest of the European continent. Not only is the preservation of their native language at the core of the struggle of the Basque people, but also its defense. When democracy was revived in Spain after the 1975 demise of Spanish dictator General Francisco Franco, the language has since begun to thrive and flourish. Of the estimated 2. 5 million Basques, Euskera is spoken by 30 percent of the population. An overwhelming majority of Basque children take up the language at schools teaching Eukera. The earliest history of the Basque people pictures them as hardy and belligerent warriors.

They fought off many invading armies from their territories. This they accomplished against the mighty Roman Empire, the ferocious Vikings and the Germanic tribe of the Visigoths, as well as Muslim trespassers. Hence many of the invading forces chose to steer away from the region. Also, Basques have developed the image of fearsome fisherfolk. They were believed to have constructed vessels that they used to travel large swaths of ocean to fish for whales and codfish. It was also believed that the Basques landed on the North American continent centuries before the discovery of the continent by Christopher Columbus. Ironically, a great number of the crew of Columbus’ ships was comprised of Basques. The struggle for an independent homeland began during the incumbency of Spanish strongman General Francisco Franco. In the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s, the Basques opposed the Nationalist armies of Franco sent to crush them. In anger, Franco declared the regions and its provinces as renegades. Franco found the task of crushing the nation difficult, and this is where the armed schismatic group, the ETA, or Euskadi Ta Azkatasuna, was formed. The ETA began as a student protest group in the 1960s fiercely opposed to the stifling military rule. During the rule of General Franco, the Eureka language was interdicted, their unique culture was outlawed and members of the academe were incarcerated and persecuted. In the ensuing years of the struggle of the ETA, 820 people, many of them members of Spain’s police and politicians at odds with the demands of the ETA.

Reference

1. BBC (2008). Kosovo MPs proclaim independence. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co. uk/2/hi/europe/7249034.stm BBC 2. (2008).
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7258842.stm BBC 3. (2008).
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7251376.stm BBC 4. (2006).
4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5165042. stm BBC 5. (1999).
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/548545.stm BBC 6. (2008).

The establishment of American society traces its roots back to the fifteenth century when Columbus discovered the existence of unknown land on this way to India. Since that time many people from all over the world have been taking refuge in the USA escaping from political or religious persecution. It has lead to outstanding ethnic diversity where human skin color varies from black, brown, and black to red and yellow. Depending on their background former “newcomers” who have become ancestors of new American generations are called “African Americans”, “Asian Americans”, “Russian Americans”, etc.

Obviously, highly mentioned representatives of worlds cultures have their own political and religious preferences that have resulted in an increasing number of different confessions (Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, etc. ) and parties (Democrats, Communists, Republicans, Socialists, etc. ). However, American nation is characterized by the following distinct features common to overwhelming majority of people: • Privacy and Individualism are the most important aspects of social independence all Americans value the most.

Since their childhood Americans have been taught to consider themselves as independent part of a nation, social group, family, etc. They are used to make their own decisions but at the same time may seldom admit that there exist a number of external factors that greatly influence their decision making skills: stereotypes, mass media, social institutions, etc. They reject the idea of being similar to anybody else as they always strive to be different and unique.

Newly arrived immigrants or those who accept Americans as guests from abroad may get a better picture of American culture and deeper insight into their beliefs and values only recognizing their true belief in freedom and self-reliance. The majority of Americans believe that in order to survive in modern world of commercialization and skim the cream off one should be free, independent, and self-reliant in terms of thoughts and decisions. This notion is also closely associated with how Americans treat their parents.

More often than not, they show less intimate relationships with family members than other representatives of any other culture. They believe that biological/historical circumstances that brought together the parents and the child reach their purpose during child’s upbringing and adolescence after which the parent/child relationships decline and grow weaker. In some cases the connection may be totally lost especially taking into consideration the fact of vast territory of the country.

Privacy is another part of American identity which is of great value when people want to psychologically “replenish” themselves or take their time to think about life situation, etc. • How Americans perceive themselves? Typically, living in the USA its citizens never see themselves as representatives of their own country. Instead, they would rather compare themselves to people who are different from others regardless of the fact whether their “competitors” are of American or foreign origin.

Many Americans make statements saying that their culture is not distinct enough to describe as they frequently visualize culture as a number of random traditions on the surface of society which can be distinct and common only in other cultures. Separate Americans sometimes believe that they established their priorities by themselves, rather than having had their thoughts and the considerations on which they are founded obtruded on them by their own culture. When asked to describe common features of American culture the majority of Americans fail to give a descent answer in some cases even rejecting the idea of “American culture” as a notion.

Meanwhile, some Americans may gladly express their generalized their opinions about different groups and subcommunities within their own culture. Southerners have stereotypical views (generalized, simplified notions) about Northerners, and the other way round. There exists a wide range of traditionally set views about people from the country, from big cities, from inland, from the coasts, from the Southeast, religious and ethnic groups and those who live in Oregon, Texas, Big Apple, California, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, etc.

• Materialism and Achievement. “She is a hard-working person,” one American may express his/her opinion towards another person, or “he does his job well. ” These phrases denote the usual American’s respect for people who approaches a task thoroughly and persistently, brining it to a victorious finale. In addition, these phrases also denote respect for achievers, those people who do their best and put much effort to achieve their goals. Foreigners frequently have a feeling that American people work harder than people from abroad expect them to work.

(More likely these visitors have been extremely subjective to American mass media production such as movies and TV programs which would typically show audience less working people but more of those who hang out and chill out driving cars and having dates). Regardless of the fact that some of the “Protestant” professional ethic may have lost some of its influence on Americans, there is still a strong faith that the perfect person must be a “hard worker. ” A hard worker “gets everything right” in terms of his/her deadline, organizational skills, high standards of quality.

Typically, Americans are keen on action. They really believe it is vital to devote much energy to their work or to other daily routine responsibilities. Moreover, they do believe they should be occupied most of the time. They are typically not satisfied, as representatives from many other cultures are, only to sit and have a talk with other people. They get bored and loose patience. They think they should be occupied with something, or at least make plans and arrangements for future. • Directness and Assertiveness.

Americans, as has been indicated above, normally take themselves as sincere, open-minded, and straight in their relationships with other people. Americans will often talk openly and straightly to others about things they do not like. They will make attempts to do so in a style they call “constructive,” which means a style which the other person will not accept as offensive or improper. If they do not talk sincerely about what is on their thoughts, they will frequently communicate their reaction in nonverbal way (no words, only facial expressions, body positions, and gestures).

They are not aware, unlike people from many Asian countries are, that they are supposed to mask or sometimes hide their emotional reaction. Their phrases, the tone of their voice, or their facial expressions will more often than not show when their feelings of anger, unhappiness, confusion, or happiness. They think it is okay to show these feelings at least within limits. The majority of Asians feel embarrassed around Americans who are showing a strong emotional response to something.

On the other hand, Latinos and Arabs are usually inclined to exhibit their emotions more candidly than Americans do, and to consider Americans as unemotional and cold. However, Americans are frequently less straight and open than they recognize it. There exist in fact many restrictions on their desire to discuss things honestly. Regardless of these limitations, Americans are usually more direct and sincere than people from many other cultures. They normally do not try to hide their emotions and are much less worried with “face” – avoiding awkwardness to themselves or others.

To them, being “open” is typically more important than preserving harmony in interpersonal relationships. Americans use the words “assertive” or “hostile” to illustrate a person who is overly assertive in expressing thoughts or making requests. The line between acceptable assertiveness and unacceptable aggressiveness is difficult to draw. • For American culture, time is a “resource,” like water or coal, which can be used properly or poorly. “Time is money. ” “You only get so much time in life, so use it wisely.

” The future will not be improved comparing to the past or the present, as Americans are used to take things, unless people use their time for constructive and promising activities. Therefore, Americans admire a “hard-working organized” people who write down things to be done and a schedule for doing them. The ideal person must be punctual (i. e. arrive at the scheduled time for event) and is considerate of other people’s time (that is, does not “waste people’s time” with conversation or other activity with no visible, beneficial outcome). References Brown, J. (2006). Americans. New York: Pocket Books.