The Process of Forgiveness

One of the songs for the comedy movie “Just Friends” goes something like this: “Forgiveness is more than saying sorry. Forgiveness is accepting people’s flaws”. However, and even though the song may sound a little silly when interpreted by Anna Faris in her high-pitched voice, it captures part of the essence of the act of forgiveness. Forgiveness is more than just blindly accepting someone’s apologies for the sake of a situation; it is a process that re-evaluates our roles as human beings and how we interact with each other in society.

To forgive reveals a pure heart or as poet Alexander Pope expressed: “[…] to forgive is divine”. From the start, forgiving someone means that that someone has hurt us; however, how far are we willing to accept a sign of repentance from that person after we‘ve been hurt? What parameters do we use to forgive him, and moreover with what intentions do we do it? Who do we do it for? There are several answers to these questions as everyone follows what they were taught by their families or religious faith on how to proceed in these situations. In my perspective, I believe we’re expected to be more humble and forgiving like God for the sake of keeping a balance -in our minds and in society- but I also believe forgiveness is something that we human beings are not capable of giving without making the other person feel miserable for what they’ve done to us first. A big part of the nature of being human deals with tons of imperfections that are far from being a mirror of God’s will.

Firstly, there is the question of to what degree do we forgive. Certain situations, like the one Weisenthal lived during the Holocaust, are hardly -if not impossibly- comparable to the situations we might usually face in our daily lives. No value or teaching on the nature of forgiveness received from family or religion could ever prepare us for such brutality and expect us to forgive those who have done us wrong just because we‘re told to. Those overwhelming situations go beyond our ability to forgive, our understanding of human nature, and the expectations we ought to fulfill in the role of victims.

Secondly, the act of forgiveness brings peace of mind not only to the person we give it to but also to us. When someone hurts us with a malicious intention we become the victim of that someone’s actions, but we could also become the victims of our own inability to forgive. Being able to release the resentment, anger or other feelings that have been caused by the harm done to us, helps us achieve a state of mind that will put us at peace with the world and with our own lives.

Thirdly, as Palestinian lawyer Raja Shehadeh has expressed, the act of forgiveness also carries a lot of power. When someone who has done us wrong begs us for forgiveness is because he or she is really regretful for the action committed. At that point, we have the freedom of exercising that implicit power as the other person is vulnerable to our decision. However this power is to be used with respect and considering that our own acts will also be judged at the end of this life by someone else. If we decide to forgive, our position is to let the power work its magic over our heart and conscience.
Lastly, it is important to make a difference here as forgiving is not synonym of forgetting. In fact, the act of forgiveness involves contemplating the reasons why something happened in the first place and taking them into consideration for their future reoccurrences. Learning from experiences in which we have been hurt and keeping them present could also help us understand our very own ability to face those situations and how we contribute to their outcome.

Forgiveness is a sincere act that we as humans perform from our hearts with ourselves more than with the people who hurt us. It determines our willingness to accept things we can’t change, and gives us strength to face the situations in which we’re victims. As I have mentioned before, it also determines several aspects of our life that could be affected by the resentments we hold against the people who hurt us. In conclusion, forgiveness is necessary to acquire as part of our interaction with society, because as the saying goes: “it all starts at home”.

 

Your Guide to Laos

Squeezed in a corner of Southeast Asia between Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, and China, Laos seems to rest quietly in an almost natural state. Twice the size of Pennsylvania, Laos has been defined as “the forgotten country” because is in fact one of the least visited and developed places in the area, yet the attributive that fits it best is “The Jewel of Southeast Asia”. A French colony for almost one-hundred years, Laos has remained isolated from foreign influences up until 1975, and shyly opened up to tourism in the last decade.

Heavily supported by NGOs (nongovernmental organizations), and one of the poorest countries in the world, Laos will offer you some exciting eco-touring options such as kayaking along the spine of the land that forms the Mekong river, trekking up in the mountains, or exploring into the Buddhist culture. Even the shortest visit to this enchanting, laid-back land will teach you to slow your pace to match its own. A trip to Laos is not about the destination, but the journey itself.

The country has a diverse geography that matches its population as every region conforms a piece of this rich tapestry of ethnic minorities. The best time to visit Laos is the cool season between November and February, as it rains least and isn’t too hot (temperatures oscillate between 71 and 75 degrees). Be advised that these are the peak tourist months since some major national and regional festivals (buns) take place during this period. During the rainy season -from May through October- most of the roads are washed out and the Mekong grows, offering a better chance to kayak its peaceful waters.

A visa is required to enter. Most border crossings will issue them upon arrival for 15 days. Make sure to have 2 passport size pictures and $30. You can obtain one for 30 days if issued at a Laos embassy. Once in Laos you can get an extension for an extra day at a travel agency for $3. Overstaying will risk you arrest, and a $5 fine for each day upon departure.

The cheapest way to get to Laos is flying to Bangkok, Thailand. A flight from Bangkok to the border city of Udon Thani is a third the cost of an equivalent one-way flight from Bangkok to Vientiane (the capital city); while a round-trip is half the cost. From Udon Thani you can take a 40-minute minivan ride that will take you to the Friendship Bridge that crosses the Mekong river and unites Thailand and Laos. From the border, a 100-Thai baht ($3) bus ride will take you to the center of the city in approximately 20 minutes.

Vientiane could be defined as one of the world’s unique capitals. As contrasting as the city is, you will find European sedans parked alongside rusty tuk-tuks (three-wheeled bicycles that serve as taxis), people talking on cell phones, monks in robes playing online video games at an internet café, and fine dining restaurants sharing the block with the popular and inexpensive ones. This tendency Laos is following from neighboring Thailand’s model is regarded as both dangerous to its natural resources and helpful to its economy. On one side, the further exploitation of forests and waterways may signify the loss of a gentle way of life; on the other, the aperture to the international market may boost the country’s economy. On the verge of this decisive position, the Lao government has been working with UN agencies to control the rural development in order to protect the vital resources at stake. Either way, if you decide to go to Laos and experience its natural state, do it with the utmost interest of being an attentive observer.

Laotians are extremely generous, friendly, and easy-going, and music and dance are part of the daily Lao character as well as their religion (60% of Lao people are practicing Buddhists). Foreigners are encouraged to do their part to preserve the peaceful environment, so keep in mind these social rules when you leave your hotel room.
- One of the main tourist attractions are the hundreds of Buddhist temples (wats) and shrines dispersed across the country. Never go shirtless, wear miniskirts or revealing shorts, and take off your shoes when entering one; breaking these rules is regarded as not polite and a lack of respect for their religious beliefs. Also, never climb a Buddha statue and keep your head lower than the monks. If you’re a woman, refrain yourself from touching or speaking directly to a monk, unless inside a temple. To your surprise, you will find that Lao people will change seats on the buses so that monks can sit only near men.
- A kiss or embrace from a stranger is considered insulting. Traditionally, Lao people use the nop to greet someone. Raise your hands in praying position; the higher you go, the more respect you show. Perform it sincerely and will win you instant friends.
- The head is believed to be very important to the souls and purity, while the feet are considered filthy. Never touch someone’s head, not even a baby’s, or point with your feet as it is considered barbaric. If you’re a woman seated on the floor, tuck your legs to one side; only men may sit with the legs crossed. Needless to say that you have to keep your feet off furniture when in public.
- Body hygiene is of the highest standards. Shower often and you will avoid being embarrassed.
- Show respect for the elderly and for the Lao culture.
- If you’re traveling with your partner, keep any display of affection private; public displays are taboo.
- Smile a lot, and use your eyes and common sense to maximize your chances of social success.

Laos is very much a cash country, especially outside of Vientiane. Keep always small USD notes with you that will be easier to change. Travelers cheques are almost impossible to change outside the city, and credit cards are only accepted in fine restaurants and luxury hotels. Although US Dollars are widely accepted, it’s always better if you carry some Thai baht or Lao kip, the national currency (the conversion goes US$ 1 to 10,000 kip). Accommodation-wise, you will find from luxury to backpacker and inexpensive deals. Either way, make sure you book ahead and ask for a discount if you go during the rainy season. $20 a day will suffice for all your needs, although it’s possible to get by on less than $10 depending on your expectations.

Outside of Vientiane toiletries can be hard to find, as well as are batteries, film and video tapes, so bring your own toilet paper or find a convenient tree. Even though trash cans are limited outside the city, pollution is almost inexistent, so don’t contribute to it and keep a plastic bag with you where you can dispose of your garbage until you make it back to the city. Keep in mind that Laos uses 220V AC, so have your own adapter if you’re taking electronics with you, and don’t forget to throw in a flashlight in your baggage as electricity is scarce outside the city (sometimes available for only a few hours a day), and power cuts are frequent. The country is extremely safe as a general rule, but petty crime does exist, so minding your valuables won’t hurt. If you find yourself out in the rural area, be cautious as little accommodations and services are available, and some recent robberies have been reported in those areas.

Vientiane will offer you the chance to experience first hand the Buddhist culture and more. Many temples have been beautifully reconstructed and allow access to visitors of any kind. That Luang is probably the most prominent one and the scene of an important festival in November. The Buddha Park -a sculpture garden full of Hindu and Buddhist statues- is awe-inspiring. You can’t miss the huge reclining Buddha and the opportunity to take the “me next to a giant Buddha” shot. The Morning Market (Talaat Sao) is where all the action takes place. Wake up early one morning and walk among the street vendors to breathe in some of the laid-back atmosphere. The city block is a sea of goods to explore, and your chance to put your bargaining skills to test. This is the Lao version of “mall culture” and a place you can’t ignore during your stay. The Plain of Jars is also a stunning and mysterious place with hundreds of stone jars of varying sizes. At the end of the day, you can relax by the Mekong sipping on Beerlao, one of the country’s few exports, and watch the sunset turn the water pink.

During your stay, you will understand the fascinating concoction this country is. Laos will ask you to never be in a hurry, and let the calm penetrate your very being. Make sure you leave your worries and prejudices at home when you travel to Laos, and you will find that the beauty of it exists not only along the Mekong at sunset, but in smiles at the market and the hospitality of its citizens.

 

Believe me, America; you’ve never seen your kids like this.

When you hear the idea that came out of Tom Forman’s head, a successful executive producer of the CBS network, for the first time, you don’t know exactly how to react. The concept of throwing forty kids in the middle of a ghost town in New Mexico to take on the arduous task of forging their own society by electing their own council, and with no parental supervision seems to be just ludicrous and senseless. Although the creator of the show claims that its intention is to give the children an opportunity to demonstrate to the world they can do better than their forefathers -or adults for that matter- you can’t help but wonder if this is the right way of doing it.

For some, the idea could also work to relate children to their past and make them experience first hand the hardship of undertaking the assignment of building a society, and maybe get a well-learned lesson in history out of it. But the other half, including me, are asking themselves: who in their right mind would pull their kids from regular school activities to expose them to exhausting tasks in pursue of money that would supposedly be destined to pay for college? Tom Forman can say that every reality TV show has been created, and that the public is eager for new and innovative ideas, but using kids as the new target to supply the lack of creativity isn’t a valid excuse. I don’t want to turn my TV on and see kids having to haul their own drinking water, or killing a chicken to eat, because it reminds me of the unjust reality thousands of kids live every day, overseas and here, and for which they don’t receive a “Golden Star“ worth $20,000 to do whatever they want with it. If the show’s main focus is to give them an opportunity to create a utopia we adults couldn‘t build, and maybe even show us how to better ourselves, why then the money incentive? Why do we have to teach them that money is the only reward, when you can get satisfaction out of pretty much everything in life? Why do we have to make the struggles that someone living below the poverty level is not able to detach from his life and didn’t choose to live either, part of a kids’ game? What exactly do we expect an 8-year old would learn from that? If anything is to be learned.
Kids are kids because that’s the beauty of childhood, and you can’t force them or expect them to think or act like grow-ups, because even some grown-ups can‘t put themselves together to carry out those tasks. Don’t take me wrong, but whoever thought their kids would learn more about values and morals in the New Mexico desert with a handful of other inexperienced-in-the-matter kids, without proper control, and with money as their only incentive, than at school, should reconsider their parental role and their life.

The CBS network, as any other mass-reaching American entity, has the moral obligation of acting with responsibility at the time of delivering a new show to its audience. Because of their nature, young minds are an easy and gullible target that should be nurtured and guided rather than be taken advantage of. Putting children under an unnecessary pressure and stress, as you can clearly see in the trailer released on the network’s website, isn’t stipulated on any parenting book, and even less letting a child experience on their own skin what it is like to be deprived of their known world as part of a game, when there are thousands of other kids about their age around the world doing the exact same thing, but struggling to make it to the next day.

Can a kid understand the responsibility that weighs on his shoulders without contemplating the monetary reward behind it? Can children objectively make decisions for the sake of the group when some haven’t completely learned to take care of themselves? I simply think that childhood is to be lived without the laborious task of making adult decisions, and learning along the way as a part of the ride, instead of being exposed to a situation by a pushy stage parent in which missing one’s family is one’s weakness and ticket to return home.

Although the reaction to this social experiment is more like a blurted “who would let their kids do that?”, every TV in America will probably turn to the CBS station to see what all the buzz is about on the evening of September 19th, because even we as “adults” simply eat what we’re fed; no questions asked.

http://tv.yahoo.com/kid-nation/show/41733/videos
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/kid_nation/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Nation
http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/07/the_founding_of_kid_nation.php
http://www.srh.weather.gov/abq/climate/Monthlyreports/April/2002/
http://www.lascrucescvb.org/html/new_mexico_insurance_and_labor.html
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970788.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1

 

My Freedom of Speech

Communication is essential in any healthy relationship, including the one between citizens and their government. Democracy relies on communication to attend the needs of a free society. It is through communication that we express our points of views and opinions on matters that affect or interest us. The freedom of expression, as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is a fundamental right that represents that indispensable condition for any other form of freedom to exist.

Throughout history the First Amendment has been taken to courts, in its battle to gain a much-needed preferred position among the other rights. In earlier times, people exercising their right to speak their minds were censored, banned, and often jailed. In more recent years, this right has been fervently protected by the Courts making the United States a beacon of protection for freedom of expression.

It wasn’t always like this. Years after the Constitution had been put in place, the US government attempted to restrict free expression by enacting the Sedition Act of 1798, which prohibited the publication of malicious newspaper stories about the president or other officials. Although the legislation was later considered an infraction during Jefferson’s presidency, the position of the Supreme Court on cases related to free expression remained undisputed until 1919, when the Court ruled that speech could only be restricted if it jeopardized the nation’s security.

The original document of the First Amendment to the Constitution mandates that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. However, several court rulings have expanded the scope of ‘speech’ beyond the mere interpretation of verbal communication. Expressing one’s ideas can be done in many ways including a silent manifestation, displaying the American flag on a car, or burning a book. Everything that we do in order to communicate our opinions is considered a form of expression.

Author Henry Sayre alludes to the 1989 controversial installation by artist Scott Tyler, What Is The Proper Way to Display the American Flag? to make a reference to the freedom of speech. The installation consisted of an American flag displayed on the floor beneath photographs of flag-draped coffins and South Koreans burning the flag. Between the flag and the pictures, there was a ledger in which viewers were able to record their impressions on the exhibition. Besides of the fact that the flag was on the floor, which many found offensive, the problem arose when people tried to write on the ledger without stepping on the flag. The flag had become a barrier to the freedom of expression it was meant to defend (20).

The freedom to report on specific issues has been strongly supported by the judiciary system. The “Pentagon papers”, publication made by the Times in 1971, marked a historic decision on what can or cannot be blocked by the government. Even though the documents had been illegally obtained by activists, the Court ruled that the government could not prohibit a speech or publication before it was made public, unless there was a clear justification for it. Author Namita Naik from the Human Rights Education Association indicates that banning the media from imparting information to the public can signify a threat to democracy.

National security has become a concern after the tragic events of 9/11. According to Thomas Patterson, for the past decades, “Americans’ rights of free expression have been defined largely in the context of national security concerns” (117). Although some information ought to be kept secret, government officials must make evident that national security is at risk before they can prohibit citizens from speaking out or assembling.

Like any other right, freedom of expression is not absolute. Patterson indicates that it does not entitle people to say or do whatever they want, nor constitutes a legal ‘backup’ to avoid responsibility for the consequences of our acts (123). Afirming that something is true, when in fact isn’t, constitutes defamation. Court rulings have established that if false allegations -whether written (libel) or spoken (slander)- produce great harm to a person’s reputation, charges may be presented against the person who initiated the allegation. Some organizations and individuals refrain many times from reporting openly on certain issues when there is a high probability of being consequently sued. For the news media, libel may often represent the limit to their ability to criticize public officials. Nevertheless, if the publication ends up being true, regardless of the harmful repercussion such publication may have on someone’s reputation, the news organization is usually protected against a libel judgement.

Obscenity is a form of expression that is also not protected by the First Amendment, and the Courts have had particular trouble trying to draw the line between the materials that may be considered obscene and the ones that may not. For example, material that is used in the privacy of a home cannot be considered illegal, with the exception of child pornography. A writer for the American Civil Liberties Union states that “Sexual expression in art and entertainment is, and has historically been, the most frequent target of censorship crusades, from James Joyce’s classic Ulysses to the photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe”. And he is probably right. Since the first artist picked up a brush, this particular form of expression has walked the fine line that separates what’s considered constitutional from what is not. In several rulings, the Court considered the ‘contemporary community standards’ (the perspective of an average person) to decide whether an activity or object is obscene; however, this has been and still is a dilemma especially when community values change over time.

Some other forms of expression that the Framers have not intended to protect are the ones that people may use with the solely intention of causing harm to others. Words or speeches that incite to violent acts may constitute a crime. Patterson points out that in the Vietnam era, all of the activists arrested by the police were found guilty on the grounds of inciting riots, and not a single person was convicted for speaking out against the government’s actions (118). Even though not every form of expression may be protected by the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive.

As defined by the Ancient Greeks and expressed by Abraham Lincoln, democracy is a form of government ruled by the people, and freedom of speech is the means by which the people are guaranteed participation in such democracy. Freedom of speech is considered a basic democratic right through which citizens of a free society can make well-informed decisions. It does not only include the right to express one’s points of views, but also the right to know. If the government had the power to control absolutely everything people say and know, it could also manipulate their opinions and therefore deprive them of their right to decide for themselves. Having criticisms in the public arena where mistakes can be corrected and questions can be answered should be in the government’s best interest.

The fundamental and legal nature of the rights of freedom of expression and information have been recognized by several international bodies including the United Nations. Even before any treaties or human rights had been adopted, the UN Assembly General adopted resolution 59(1) in 1946 which established that “freedom of information is a fundamental human right”. According to a report prepared by Toby Mendel, freedom of information was considered part of the basic right of freedom of expression which, as stated on article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), also includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers (2).

It is clear that having the right to express and share our opinions freely -in whichever form we choose to do so- without being censored constitutes the basis for us to fully exercise our other rights. Without this vital right elections would have no meaning, and no political action, resistance to injustice and oppression would be possible. As freedom of speech serves many functions in different levels of society, it also involves toleration of matters that may make no sense to the majority of people. But in the words of philosopher John Stuart Mill, “there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered”. This teaching shows us that in order for us to arrive to a well-informed decision on any issue, we must consider all facts and ideas from all sources -including the opposing ones- and mirror them against our own. Freedom of expression must be protected not only because it allows each and one of us to realize and develop our full human potential, but also because it holds the key to feed our knowledge, educate our thinking, and avoid ignorance from being the cause of our mistakes.

References

“Freedom of Expression.” ACLU. 10 Oct 2005. American Civil Liberties Union. 19 Feb 2008 .

Mendel, Toby. “Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey.” UNESCO. 2003. Unesco. 18 Feb 2008 .

Naik, Asmita. “Freedom of Expression.” HREA.org. 2003. Human Rights Education Association. 18 Feb 2008 .

“Obscenity – Cross-References.” American Law Encyclopedia Vol 7. n.d.. Law Library – American Law and Legal Information. 19 Feb 2008 .

Patterson, Thomas E.. We the People. 6th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Sayre, Henry M.. A World of Art. 4th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2004.

Van Camp, Julie C.. “Freedom of Expression: The First Amendment.” Freedom of Expression at the National Endowment for the Arts. July 4, 2005. California State University, Long Beach. 18 Feb 2008 .

van Mill, Dan. “Freedom of Speech.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002. 19 Feb 2008 .

 

A Very Remarkable Document

It’s one o’clock in the afternoon and as usual I turn my TV to channel 800 to watch the news from my home country, Argentina. Today’s highlight is more of the same: a 49-year old blind woman can’t travel with her guide dog because the hotel owner wrongly presumes the dog will become a nuisance for the other guests; apparently everyone but him knows those dogs behave better than most people. The lack of legislation that protects the rights of handicapped people is every day’s news in a country where many individual liberties are ignored, and the government seems to care too little to do something about it.

There’s no doubt that Americans enjoy what many only dare to dream of. But this fairy tale was no easy thing to accomplish; it was the result of years of fighting for what the early Americans believed was theirs in the first place: freedom. The idea that was forged 200-plus years ago serves as the cornerstone of today’s society. Thanks to this country’s forefathers’ vision, United States is regarded as one of the most prosperous and powerful nations of the world, and a shining beacon of liberty and success for the many immigrants that have come here in search of a better life.

The Bill of Rights is probably one of the most remarkable documents ever created –along with the Constitution- that was crafted in response to Americans’ need for explicit protection of their individual liberties. Its creation prevented the central government from assuming total power over its citizens and guaranteed legal defenses for Americans. It gave the United States that privileged position and distinguishable characteristics: that of a fair, flexible and practically flawless system of government.

Its importance to everyday citizens must be understood in terms of what the Bill of Rights really represents to them. Freedom was the main principle the United States was built upon, and civil liberties were the means by which ordinary citizens could be guaranteed that freedom. Each and one of us is part of some minority whether it is race, religion, economics, or political association. Although protecting the minority may cause some controversy, it’s the entire society who ultimately benefits from the protection of minority rights (Larkin, “Law Wise”).

Today, many of these civil liberties that have made America so grandiose are being undermined. While many citizens want their freedoms to remain intact, others fervently believe that giving up individual freedoms is essential for the country’s sake. To understand the meaning behind the First Ten Amendments that conform the Bill of Rights, it’s necessary to take into consideration the time in which this document was created.
Among the entire Bill of Rights, there are a few amendments that have been misinterpreted and disputed throughout history. The Second Amendment, which grants Americans the right to keep and bear weapons, is often debated among anti-gun activists and gun owners circles. The first assert that such right is outdated while the latter consider it an essential part of what America truly represents. The historical background of this particular amendment has to do with the fact that back then most men were part of militias that could be called into duty at any time as a necessity to secure a free state. Nowadays, many regard the widespread availability of firearms as the cause of a violent culture and way of thinking, but not without a good reason. The Columbine High School disaster in 1999, the fourth-deadliest school killing in the United States history, made everyone realize that having the right to bear arms doesn’t always translate in a safer country. “Four percent of the students reported that they felt too unsafe to attend school before the date of the Columbine shootings, compared to 10 percent of the students questioned after that date.” (Leathers, “Students more afraid”). Incidents of this nature show the macabre and somehow ironic side of the system when American youngters are the target of insane minds.
In the time of the current Administration, the Fifth Amendment –which forbids the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation and, depriving citizens of life, liberty, and property without due process of law- has fallen victim to grave violations. After September 11 in an attempt to reestablish the confidence Americans had lost, the government came up with the Patriot Act which even though has helped to its specific purpose, it also became the symbol of exagerated control for many. In the period between its set in place until today, the INS has detained thousands of individuals –foreigners and Americans- that have been incriminated in what the Act describes as ‘terrorist acts’ without due process of law (Gregory “Bush’s war”). The Act has been often debated as to whether the government has gone too far to preserve the essence of the American principle of freedom by turning against its own citizens’ interests and liberties. The truth is that the Patriot Act enacted to protect American citizens against foreign terrorists has done more to limit these basic constitutional rights than to prevent terrorism.

Although various opinions surface when it comes to decide whether some aspects of the Bill of Rights are misinterpreted, the truth is that this very important document must be preserved in order to perpetuate the inalienable rights Americans wouldn’t otherwise be able to enjoy. It is those civil liberties that have given America the recognizable identity that differentiates it from many other nations in the world where people suffer the despotism of their governments and the lack or violation of individual rights. Lincoln’s definition of true democracy is to remain intact as long as the Bill of Rights continues to provides the freedoms protected by the Constitution.

References:

Gregory, Anthony. “Bush’s War on the Bill of Rights.” LewRockwell.com. May 14, 2004. Lee Rockwell. 25 Jan 2008 .

Larkin, Gayle B. “Law Wise Newsletter.” KS Judicial Branch. October 1999. Kansas Bar Foundation. 28 Jan 2008 .

Leathers, Laura. “Students More Afraid to Attend School After Columbine .” Center for the Advancement of Health. March 21, 2002. Center for the Advancement of Health. 28 Jan 2008 .