Fighting for Rights after Reconstruction

            America has been a battleground for rights since the moment the Whiteman set foot on this land. Equal rights have been fought for race, gender, and sexual orientation (among other things) and there has been one clear commonality with each fight—Power.

Black Civil Rights

            At the end of the Civil War when slavery ended, not everyone was happy to welcome Blacks as equals. The Southerners fought for 35 years to have the full support of the Constitution and the Supreme Court for the Jim Crow Laws. Jim Crow Laws were state and local laws in the south that made it possible for Blacks to maintain their status as second-class citizens. Any laws during that time which were passed against Blacks or in order to extend segregation were known as Jim Crow Laws. The laws were supported by the Supreme Court under ‘Separate but Equal’, meaning that Blacks and Whites were treated equally, just segregated from one another. This was not how it transpired, however. Each state in the south had their own set of Jim Crow Laws, and following are a few examples from various states, according The Jackson Sun:

In Alabama, “No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed.”

In Arizona, “The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void.”

In Florida, “[Juvenile Delinquents] there shall be  separate buildings, not nearer than one fourth mile to each other, one for white boys and one for negro boys. White boys and negro boys shall not, in any manner, be associated together or worked together.”

In Georgia, “All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time.”

In Kentucky, “The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other.”

In Louisiana, “Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or visa-versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.”

In Maryland, “All railroad companies and corporations, and all persons running or operating cars or coaches by steam on any railroad line or track in the State of Maryland, for the transportation of passengers, are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers.”

In Mississippi, “There shall be maintained by the governing authorities of every hospital maintained by the state for treatment of white and colored patients separate entrances for white and colored patients and visitors, and such entrances shall be used by the race only for which they are prepared.”

In Missouri, “Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school.”

In New Mexico, “Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided; such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent.”  

In North Carolina, “The...Utilities Commission...is empowered and directed to require the establishment of separate waiting rooms at all stations for the white and colored races.”

In Oklahoma, “Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each offense.”

In South Carolina, “It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro.”

In Texas, “Any white person of such county may use the county free library under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioner’s court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by [a] custodian of the negro race under the supervision of the county librarian.”

In Virginia, “Every person...operating...any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or any place of public entertainment or public assemblage which is attended by both white and colored persons, shall separate the white race and the colored race and shall set apart and designate...certain seats therein to be occupied by white persons and a portion thereof, or certain seats therein, to be occupied by colored persons.”

In Wyoming, “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mulattos, Mongolians, or Malaya hereafter contracted in the State of Wyoming are and shall be illegal and void” (Jackson Sun, 2001).

Although the Confederacy lost the war, it is evident that they still maintained power over the blacks in a large amount of the states.

            The Jim Crow Laws lasted until state-sponsored school segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1954 in Brown vs. the Board of Education. The remaining Jim Crow Laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

            State-sponsored racism did not end with these Acts. Until the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the possession of crack, a drug that is primarily used by the poor, was sentenced 10 times harsher than powder cocaine, a drug primarily used by richer people. A higher percentages of whites have also tried hallucinogens, marijuana, prescription pain relievers, and stimulants (National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2011), but Blacks are arrested for drug possession more than three times as often as Whites (Fellner, 2009). Black adults represent one-quarter of all felony drug arrests in California, despite comprising just five percent of the state population.

            There are countless other examples of State-sponsored racism, including New York’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ program and Arizona’s SB 1070. These laws are always disguised as laws that ‘protect’ us but they clearly target minority groups. Whether you want to believe that it is power of Whites over Blacks, rich over poor, or just laws that occupy you from other issues, it always comes down to that one thing—Power.    

Women Civil Rights

Women’s fight for civil rights has been a battle throughout history, but it did not become an issue in America until the Europeans arrived. As women fought they won some battles and they lost others.

In 1870, a law was passed which allowed women to keep money they had earned. Before this law, they were required to give the money to their husband or father, which implied a certain amount of ownership over a woman. That same year, the 15^th amendment passed giving Blacks the right to vote, but excluded women.

 In 1872, the first woman was nominated for President. She was a member of the Equal Rights Party, but neither she nor any other woman was allowed to vote. Susan B. Anthony cast her first vote that year to test whether the 14^th Amendment would be interpreted broadly enough to guarantee women the right to vote. However, she was arrested and convicted of “unlawful voting.”

In 1874, The Supreme Court decided in Minor v. Happersett that a Missouri law limiting the right to vote to male citizens was constitutional. The Court rejected the claim by Virginia Minor that the state law deprived her of one of the “privileges or immunities” of citizenship and was in violation of the 14th Amendment. While women are “persons” under the 14th Amendment, the Court said, they are of “non-voting” citizens, and states may grant or deny them the right to vote.

In 1891, women could no longer be forced to live with husbands unless they wished to. This was one step away from ownership by a man and a step towards equality.

In 1920, the 19^th Amendment was ratified. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy established the President’s Commission on the Status of Women and appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as chairwoman. In 1963 a report was documented by her, substantiating discrimination against women in the workplace. It made recommendations for improvement, including fair hiring practices, paid maternity leave, and affordable child care.

In 1963, the Equal Pay Act became federal law. The law states employers must give equal pay for men and women performing the same job duties regardless of the race, color, religion, national origin or sex of the worker.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act passed. Title VII bars employment discrimination by private employers, employment agencies and unions based on race, sex, and other grounds.

In 1965, the Supreme Court made its ruling on Griswold v. Connecticut which legalized the use of contraception for married couples. In 1972, the same right was extended to single women.

In 1972, Congress passed Title IX which required schools that receive federal funds provide equal access to educational programs for both men and women.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on the still controversial case of Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to choose whether to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term. This ruling nullified anti-abortion laws in 46 states.

In 1973, women were integrated into all branches of the military as the forces became volunteer only, eliminating the draft.

In 1978, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act passed which made it unlawful for employers to question potential hires about their plans to have children.

In 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed. The federal law expanded workers’ right to sue for pay discrimination and relaxed the statute of limitations on such suits. Ledbetter had sued her employer, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., when she neared retirement and learned that she was paid much less than her male colleagues. But the Supreme Court threw out her case, saying she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her peers. Courts repeatedly had cited the decision as a reason for rejecting lawsuits claiming discrimination based on race, sex, age and disability. The new law changed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which said discrimination complaints must be brought within 180 days of the discriminatory act (Women’s Rights Timeline).

Women are still fighting for their rights today. According to the United States Census Bureau, in 2012, the median earnings of American women working full time year-round were $37,791. American men earned a median income of $49,398. The gender wage gap has remained at about 77 cents on the dollar since 2007.

In terms of re-employment after the recession, women are still behind men. The number of men working full time, year-round increased by 1 million between 2011 and 2012, while the number of full-time working women remained stagnant.

African-American women earn 69 cents for every dollar paid to African-American men, and Hispanic women earn just 58 cents on the dollar compared to Hispanic men. The disparity is even larger when these women are compared to white men (United States Census Bureau).

            There are many other examples of how women are still battling for their civil rights.  In 2011 alone, states passed 162 provisions and 80 laws relating to reproductive health and rights, limiting women’s rights (Guttmacher Institute, 2011). Even things as simple as what insurance plans cover are not equitable. Insurance plans often times cover Viagra, a drug that allows a man to be ready for sexual activity, but do not always cover birth control.

            The reason for all these laws is the same as any other laws that target a particular group. Again, it comes down to that one thing—Power.

LGBT Civil Rights

            Historically, each minority group has gotten recognition for inequalities in America. It is now time for the LGBT community to get theirs. There are still huge amounts of prejudice towards this minority group; however, there have been more rights given to this group in the last 20 years than any time in modern America.

In 1924, The Society for Human Rights in Chicago became the country's earliest known gay rights organization.

In 1948, Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality was more common than was traditionally believed.

In 1951, the Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, was formed by Harry Hay. He has been considered by many to be the founder of the gay rights movement..

 In 1958, Joe Cino, an Italian-American theater producer, opened Caffe Cino. Caffe Cino has been commonly credited with starting the ‘Off-Off-Broadway’ theater movement. Six years after Caffe Cino opened, it hosted the first gay plays, The Madness of Lady Bright, by Lanford Wilson, and The Haunted Host, by Robert Patrick.

In 1962, Illinois became the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.

In 1966, the world's first transgender organization, the National Transsexual Counseling Unit, was established in San Francisco.

In 1969, the Stonewall Riots transformed the gay rights movement from one limited to a small number of activists into a widespread protest for equal rights and acceptance. Patrons of a gay bar in New York's Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, fought back during a police raid on June 27, which sparked three days of riots.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. That same year, Harvey Milk was elected city supervisor in San Francisco.

In 1976, San Francisco Mayor George Moscone appointed Harvey Milk to the Board of Permit Appeals, making Milk the first openly gay city commissioner in the United States.

In 1977, activists in Miami, Florida influenced the passing of a civil rights ordinance, making discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in Dade County. Save Our Children, a campaign by a Christian fundamentalist group and headed by singer Anita Bryant, was launched immediately after. In the largest special election of any in Dade County history, 70% voted to overturn the ordinance. It was a huge setback for the LGBT community.

Harvey Milk was very important in 1978. On January 8, he made national news when he was sworn in as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk began his term by sponsoring a civil rights bill that outlawed sexual orientation discrimination, which Mayor Moscone signed into law. Shortly afterward, Proposition 6, a proposal to fire any teacher or school employee who publicly supported gay rights, gained a lot of support. Harvey Milk campaigned against the bill and attended every event hosted by Briggs, the founder of the bill. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Jerry Brown spoke out against the proposition. On November 7, voters rejected the proposition by more than a million votes. On November 27, Milk and Moscone were assassinated by Dan White, another San Francisco city supervisor.

In 1979, 75,000 people attended the March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. This represented the largest group of support to date.

At the 1980 Democratic National Convention held at New York City's Madison Square Garden, Democrats took a stance supporting gay rights, adding the following to their platform: "All groups must be protected from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, language, age, sex or sexual orientation."

In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In 1984, the city of Berkeley, California, become the first city to offer its employees domestic-partnership benefits.

In 1993, the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy was signed into law, which allowed gays to serve in the military as long as they were not open about their sexual orientation. President Clinton's original intention to revoke the prohibition against gays in the military was met with stiff opposition. This compromise resulted in the discharge of thousands of men and women in the armed forces.

On April 25 of that same year, almost one million people joined the March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Equal Rights. Jesse Jackson, RuPaul, Martina Navratilova, and Eartha Kitt were among the speakers and performers at a rally after the march. The march was in response to “Don't Ask Don't Tell”, Amendment 2 in Colorado (a law that prevented the state from passing any laws protecting homosexuals or bisexuals), as well as the rising hate crimes and other ongoing discriminations against the LGBT community.

In 1996, the Supreme Court overruled Amendment 2.  This led the way to passing future laws helping to protect against discrimination.

In 2000, Vermont became the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions between gay or lesbian couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses.” It essentially created a ‘separate but equal’ view on homosexual marriage.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

In November of that same year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violated the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.”

From 2004-2007, several states enacted laws in favor of the LGBT community

·         2004: Same-sex marriages became legal in Massachusetts.

·         2005, civil-unions became legal in Connecticut.

·         2006, civil-unions became legal in New Jersey in December.

·         2007, the House of Representatives approved a bill ensuring equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.

In 2008, a New York State appeals court unanimously voted that valid same-sex marriages performed in other states must be recognized by employers, granting same-sex couples the same rights as other couples. That same year, the state of Oregon passed a law that allowed same-sex couples to register as domestic partners further allowing them some spousal rights of married couples. Later, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

On November 4, 2008, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida approved the passage of measures that banned same-sex marriage. Arkansas passed a measure to ban homosexuals from adopting children.

On October 10, 2008, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry. The court also ruled that the state could not deny homosexual couples the freedom to marry under Connecticut's constitution, and that the state's civil-union law did not provide same-sex couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples. .

On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejected the state law banning same-sex marriage.

On April 7 of that same year, Vermont became the first state to legalize gay marriage through their legislature.

On May 6, 2009, Maine became the 31st state to ban the gay marriage. While several other states were passing laws moving towards equality for the LGBT community, Maine’s stance showed that there was still opposition for equality.

On June 3, 2009, New Hampshire governor John Lynch signed legislation allowing same-sex marriage. The law stipulated that religious organizations and their employees would not be required to participate in the ceremonies.

On June 17, 2009, President Obama signed a referendum that allowed the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive benefits. Unfortunately, full health coverage was not included in the benefits.

On December 18 2010, the U.S. Senate voted 65 to 31 in favor of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  This meant that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals could now serve openly in the armed forces.

On June 24, 2011, New York passed a same-sex marriage bill. The bill was approved with a 33 to 29 vote.

On February 7, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court stated, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On February 13, 2012, Washington became the seventh state to legalize gay marriage.

On March 1, 2012, Maryland passed legislation to legalize gay marriage, becoming the eighth state to do so.

On May 9, 2012, President Barack Obama publicly stated his support of same-sex marriage. "It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,"

On Nov. 6, 2012, Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay politician elected to the Senate. That same day, gay marriage was approved in a popular vote for the first time. Maine and Maryland voted in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. To add to the moment, voters in Minnesota rejected a measure to ban same-sex marriage.

On April 29, 2012, Jason Collins of the NBA's Washington Wizards announced in an essay in Sports Illustrated that he is gay. "I'm a 34-year-old N.B.A. center. I'm black and I'm gay… I've reached that enviable state in life in which I can do pretty much what I want. And what I want is to continue to play basketball. I still love the game, and I still have something to offer. My coaches and teammates recognize that. At the same time, I want to be genuine and authentic and truthful." He became the first professional male athlete to come out as gay.

On May 2, 2012, Rhode Island passed same sex marriage.

On May 7, 2012, Governor Jack Markell signed the Civil Marriage Equality and Religious Freedom Act, which legalized same-sex marriage for the state of Delaware.

On May 13, 2012, in Minnesota, the State Senate voted 37 to 30 in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

On June 26, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. In a 5 to 4 vote, the court ruled that DOMA violated the rights of gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that the law interfered with the states' rights to define marriage.

On Nov. 5, 2012, Illinois became the 15th state to recognize same-sex marriages when the House of Representatives approved the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, 2013.

On Nov. 12, 2012, Hawaii became the 16th state to recognize same-sex marriages.

            Most of these are outstanding achievements for the LGBT community, but the fight is not even close to being over. There are still 34 states where homosexual couples cannot get married. Furthermore, homosexuals can be fired just for their sexual orientation in 29 states. This is not just a battle for a title. This is a battle for next-of-kin rights, parental rights, insurance rights, etc. and above all, it is a battle to not be treated as a second-class citizen. I believe that the reason these citizens have had to fight for these rights, when they should just be appointed to them, is because it is considered sinful by the religion of majority. This ‘sin’ has been used as a form of separation in order to maintain power over other people.

Conclusion

            There have always been and always will be minority groups in this country. Whether it is a minority based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or favorite color, it is not ok to not have equal rights and equal protection under the law. But there are people who disagree. People who think that if they allow everyone to be equal, they will somehow lose something in the exchange. This is rarely true. When we live in a society where everyone has equal access, our civilization will flourish. We need to stop this battle for our own personal power and realize that if we empower others, we empower ourselves.

 

 

Reference List

 

Alexander, Michelle (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of

Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

 

Crumrin, Timothy. Women and the Law in Early 19th-Century Indiana.

http://www.connerprairie.org/learn-and-do/indiana-history/america-1800-1860/women-and-the-law-in-early-19th-century.aspx

 

Fellner, Jamie (2009). Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States. Stanford

and Law Review. Vol. 20:2

 

Packard, Jerrod M. (2002). American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow. New

York: St. Martin’s Press.

 

The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline. (2013). Infoplease.com. Retrieved

December 8, 2013. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0761909.html

 

Examples of Jim Crow Laws (2001). The Jackson Sun. Ferris.edu. Retrieved

December 8, 2013 http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/misclink/examples/

 

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012.United

States Census Bureau. Retrieved December 8, 2013. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html 

 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2011). Substance Abuse & Mental Health

Data Archive. Retrieved December 8, 2013: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickconfig.do?34481-0001_all

 

States Enact Record Number of Abortion Restrictions in First Half of 2011 (2011).

Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved December 8, 2013. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/07/13/index.html

 

Women’s Rights Timeline. Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics. Retrieved

December 8, 2013 http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/Timelines/WomensRightstimeline.pdf

Through Education We Will Change The World

           Plato was a Greek philosopher who lived from 428-348 BCE. He was the student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle. Plato was one of the most important thinkers of his time and arguably ever. His writing is so beneficial that even though it is over 2,300 years old, it is still studied, used, and relevant today. The Republic is comprised of several books written about Socrates. Of these books there are two that I find particular relevant and I reference them quite often in my everyday life. Books II and VII of the Republic are very powerful and, when studied deeply, can depict the world we live in today.

The Ring of Gyges

Book II is about the Legend of the Ring of Gyges. In Book II Socrates asks us to imagine that a noble man is given a ring which makes him invisible. Once in possession of this ring, the man can act unjustly with no fear of reprisal. Glaucon Claims no one can deny that even the most just man would behave unjustly if he had this ring. He would indulge all of his materialistic, power-hungry, and erotically lustful urges. This tale proves that people are only just because they are afraid of punishment for injustice. No one is just because justice is desirable in itself.

Glaucon ends his speech with an attempt to demonstrate that not only do people prefer to be unjust rather than just, but that it is rational for them to do so. The perfectly unjust life, he argues, is more pleasant than the perfectly just life. In making this claim, he draws two detailed portraits of the just and unjust man. The completely unjust man, who indulges all his urges, is honored and rewarded with wealth. The completely just man, on the other hand, is scorned and wretched.

His brother, Adeimantus, breaks in and bolsters Glaucon’s arguments by claiming that no one praises justice for its own sake, but only for the rewards it allows you to reap in both this life and the afterlife. He reiterates Glaucon’s request that Socrates show justice to be desirable in the absence of any external rewards: that justice is desirable for its own sake, like joy, health, and knowledge.

This Allegory is presented for Socrates to explain what he thinks justice should be as well as how fallible man is. I chose this story primarily because it makes me wonder: what is justice?

In the Republic, there were several definitions given by several people. Polemachus said that justice is “doing well to your friends and harm to your enemies.” Thrasymachus explains justice and injustice as "justice is what is advantageous to the stronger, while injustice is to one's own profit and advantage." Glaucon says that justice is “a social contract that emerges between people who are roughly equal in power, such that no one is able to oppress the others, since the pain of suffering injustice outweighs the benefit of committing it.” To Socrates, justice was “carrying out one’s duty to one’s station.” By his definition, if one’s job is to lie, then the just thing to do is to lie.

I think that the word justice is something that cannot be defined by what it is. I can only think of defining it by what it is not. Justice is not harming another human being. If you do acts that result in someone’s harm, you are committing injustices. This definition makes it hard to be a just person. It forces you to be educated on all possible outcomes so you can decide which act is just and which acts are not.

The Ring of Gyges metaphor really makes me think whether or not a definition for justice really exists. In the Ring of Gyges, Gyges discovers a magical ring that can turn him invisible. Using this ring, he deceives, murders, and manipulates his way into becoming king. Regardless of what he does as king, using my definition, nothing he does can make what he did just.

So this begs the question, is the ring of Gyges metaphor a powerful argument for doing injustice if one can get away with it? This question has plagued my moral compass. The metaphor clearly points out that no person could be just if they had the power of invisibility. A person would become consumed with that power and would act out every fantasy. It would start with little things like sneaking into a girl’s locker room and would progress to stealing money out of a cash register. It would eventually turn into doing possibly evil things. If these are the acts that a person plans on committing then the ring is not a good argument for this.

There are other acts that may be more persuasive in convincing me that you can use the Ring of Gyges to commit acts of injustice. For example, if I was alive in 1941 and had the ring, would I be able to use the ring to kill Adolf Hitler? I would be saving millions of lives and I would only have to kill one person if I did it right. Many people could easily justify committing one murder to save millions of lives. In fact, in a class discussion I had a few years ago, one classmate defined justice by calling it “a balance.” Whatever does the most good is justice. By this definition, killing Hitler would be a just act. Or perhaps it would not. Because we have only seen the outcome of Hitler’s holocaust, we have no way of knowing what would have happened in history if he was killed. If a greater tragedy happened because we killed Hitler, it no longer stands as a just act. By my definition, this could not be just because I think you can never justify murdering a human-being, regardless of the evils they commit. I believe in rehabilitation and if I were to use the ring in any way back then, it would be to capture Hitler in an attempt to put him to trial. In this way, I think you can avoid committing the great injustice of murder and still do the right thing by saving the millions of lives.

Another example for committing injustice is the act of Robin Hood: rob from the rich and give to the poor. This is one that rocks my moral compass the most. Because I believe so strongly in the community and helping everyone survive and succeed, not just the richest one percent, I may be able to, in good conscience, use to ring to steal to help those who need it. The reason I could do this is because if I was faced with the choice of a rich person having another car, and 1,000 people eating for a month, I definitely choose the latter. But in order to be able to do it without affecting my conscience negatively, I would have to exhaust all other possible solutions. Because once I decide that stealing is the solution, where do I stop? Do I stop the second everyone has food but no shelter, do I keep going until everyone has food and shelter but no car, or do I push it to the point of Communism, where everyone has an equal share? Once Pandora’s Box is opened, I find it impossible to decide where the just point to stop is. And where am I in this predicament? Do I give myself a percentage, do I leave myself out of it, or do I treat myself like any other poor person? Where do I draw the line?

I think if the Ring of Gyges existed, it would be too much for any one person to handle. Even if they were the noblest person without a selfish thought in their brain, they would not be able to handle the great powers and responsibility of the ring. Would they choose to kill Hitler, or let him be? Would they steal from the rich to give to the poor, or let the “free-market” decide where the money goes? What would they weigh in as pros and cons? And once they have the ring and see the great power the ring holds, would they still be so noble, or would they allow it to consume them like it would a normal person?

As noble as I think I am, I would be afraid to see what kind of person I would become if I had possession of the ring. I would be unable to resist committing atrocious acts. I could only hope that watching unknowing women undress would be the worst of my crimes and I would use the ring towards more noble things. I know that death is not a penalty anyone should receive for any crime. But because it is such an easy solution, I may become consumed with certain goals that I may see it as just a means to an end. When I am the only possible governor, will I ultimately do what is right?

The Allegory of the Cave

In book VII, Socrates and Glaucon discuss education through the metaphor of a cave. Socrates tells the story as a what if scenario. In his story, a group of people lived in a cave their entire lives, never seeing the outside world. These people are chained in such a way that they cannot look anywhere else but directly in front of them. In front of them is nothing but a blank wall and behind them are fire and a partial wall with different people carrying different kinds of statues on it. Some of the people converse as they move the statues and different noises are made. The only thing the people in the cave can interpret is the shadows the statues make on the wall and, because this is all they have seen, this is their reality.

One of the prisoners was then freed from his chains and is forced to see the fire and the statues. It pains him and he refuses to accept it at first but eventually does. He then is forced outside of the cave and into the real world. He is only able to adapt piece by piece. First, he is able to see the shadows, then reflections, then able to see the people and animals. It progresses that way until he is finally able to see the sun and understand the world around him. To me, this story is religion.

I was raised Christian in a Christian society. I chose to go to church on my own every Sunday and listen to the pastor, my best friend’s father, speak his sermon. This is what everyone around me and I perceived as truth. I continued to perceive it as truth until I was about 16 years old. I started to see the statues and the fire. I started to question my faith. It started out with little questions like “When did the dinosaurs live if the world is only a few thousand years old?” This got me to start looking into the possibilities of other beliefs. I continued question little things at a time all the way through high school until I finally saw the sun. With all the ties of politics and religions I knew that Christianity could not possibly be the truth because, how Anne Lamott put it, “you can safely assume that you’ve created God in your image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” I continue my personal evolution as I learn more and more about all the bad things religion shoves down peoples’ throats. I have reached the point of the Allegory of the Cave where I would rather go through suffering then to go back to swallowing the hate speech.

This was just my personal relationship with this book, but it relates to so much more. Our Society as a whole tries to keep us in Plato’s Cave. Our political system, religion, media, our education, social norms, etc. are setup to keep us ignorant and as I always say, education is the cure to everything. People may claim that I am a conspiracy theorist, but we are slaves to the elite and we are too ignorant to see it. With our public education system, The Powers That Be do not want us to really learn. They dumb down everything, have us teach to the tests, and completely forbid any real open discussion. Politics and religion are the easiest ways for them to divide and conquer. They keep us fighting each other and we don’t see who our real enemy is. “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful” (Seneca the Younger). The media is just the icing on the cake. It keeps us entertained and informed enough to make us feel good about ourselves. “Fox News: Rich people paying rich people to tell the middle class people to blame poor people” (Unknown).

The Powers-That-Be, as I like to call them, are the holders of the Ring of Gyges. Whether they felt just at the beginning or not is unknown, but they have become consumed by the powers that the ring possess. The ring in this instance is power and money. They use their ring to manipulate the media and the political system to pass legislation and to propagate the ideas behind them. They destroy our environment, healthcare, and our education system to line their pockets through privatized prisons, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and Big Pharmaceutical. They use this ring so well that they have us thanking them and voting against our best interests. They have locked us in a cave behind the boob tube and the American Dream.

The Allegory of the Cave and the Ring of Gyges are metaphors that still fit society today. We are living in the cave. Whether it is the hidden agendas of religion or the Oligarchical-Plutocracy masked behind the false image of Democracy we have in America, we are blind. The only cure for that is to face the pain of exiting the cave and bare the light of the sun.

How we do that is the obvious problem. The people in the cave are many and the Powers-That-Be outside the cave are few. But they possess the ring that puts a boulder in front of the entrance of the cave. To solve this issue we must take our first step. We must turn away from the shadows on the wall and see them for what they are. We must work together to move the boulder out of our way. As Morpheus said in the famous Matrix movie (based on Plato’s Cave), “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters-- the very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system; that they will fight to protect it.” This tells me that the battle cannot be over an adult mind. Sure, we can get some to crossover and free their mind but the battle must be fought and won with our youth.

We must unite for education reform. If we can create real change in our system, we can change everything. If we can teach our children to read, analyze, and question everything, they will have the tools to escape the cave and destroy the Ring of Gyges for good.

Theocratic or Secular America?

Throughout our lives we have heard the story of why the Founding Fathers came to America. The story we were told was that the Founding Fathers came here because of religious persecution in England. They escaped and formed this nation to have ‘Freedom of Religion.’ We are currently in a very big religion push in politics so there is a lot of mention that America was established as ‘Christian Nation.’ Which story is true and which one is false? Or perhaps they are both false? Was the government formed as a secular nation like the stories we were told in school; was America formed as a Theocracy like the ‘Religious Right’ are saying; or is the truth somewhere in the middle? Have we become more religious or less since the colonial times?

We have this image formed in our head of America being established on secularism but there were many religious groups, particularly the Puritans, who were a part of the formation of the 13 original colonies. These Puritans were responsible for a great amount of persecution.

The Puritan Beliefs are: Humans are born sinful since Adam’s fall; God only saves a select few; Jesus died for the chosen ones, not for everyone; God’s grace is freely given, cannot be earned or denied; and those elected by God have full power to interpret the will of God (Morison, 1972). The last belief is the most substantial. Due to the religious experience, most Puritans believe that they are one of the chosen and, in turn, believe they have to ability to interpret the Bible. This led to their acts of persecution. They wanted everyone to worship their way and because they were the dominating force in the colonies, they had the power to punish nonconformists with fines, banishment, imprisonment, and torture.

Mary Dyer was an English-born immigrant who came to Massachusetts in 1635. Mary became a Quaker and quickly became the target for persecution. Quakers were banished from Massachusetts, so she moved to Rhode Island after threats of death. Mary did not heed these warnings, however and returned to Massachusetts periodically. On June 1, she was walked out of her prison house towards a tree to be hanged. She had been here before. Seven months earlier, she had been caught and was facing execution. She was walked to that tree in the same fashion but that time she was with two fellow compatriots. Those two young men were strung up to that tree and murdered. When it was her turn, things were different. They only went through the ordeal as a charade—an attempt to get her to repent. They wanted her to repent, be set free, and then be an example for the other Quakers. However, that was not the case – she did not repent.  Luckily, they realized how bad it would look if the news of them killing a mother reached England and she was let go. On that June day, seven months later, she was not so lucky. Despite pleads by Mary’s husband, she was hanged. Mary was murder for simply being a Quaker.

Another example of these despicable acts was the Salem Witch Trials. The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings, as well as prosecutions, of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between 1692 and 1693. In that time, the belief in the supernatural was common. Witchcraft had become synonymous with the devil, demons, and evil spirits. In fact, it was expected for people to believe in evil spirits. 17^th century philosopher and writer Joseph Glanvill said, “If they doubted the reality of spirits, they not only denied demons, but also the almighty God” (Glanvill, 1676, p. 2). In Salem, it was believed that good came from God and any misfortunes were the work of the devil. Infant deaths, illness, and crop failures were blamed on the evil spirits and were attributed to witchcraft. Because you cannot prove a negative, once an accusation of witchcraft was placed upon someone, it stuck. Those who maintained their innocence were executed and those who confessed to be witches were not executed. Over 200 were accused and not one was cleared (Drake, 1968).

Their original intent was not to be so violent. They set out to form what Plato called the Good City or, as John Winthrop called it, the City upon a Hill. In 1630 while aboard the Arbella John Winthrop said:

Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together; always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, "may the Lord make it like that of New England." For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God's sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going. And to shut this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deut. 30. "Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil," in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it. Therefore let us choose life that we and our seed may live, by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him, for He is our life and our prosperity.

Their goals were noble; their results were not.

            The Jamestown settlement was filled with a different type of people. Unlike the Puritans, they did not set out to for the purity of their settlement. These particular immigrants came to America for economic reasons. To these early Virginians, they were less interested in the intangibles and much more interested in material wealth. These secularists were not anti-religion; they were just predisposed with things they valued more. This is very similar to the people of today. There is a small amount of extremely religious people that hold God and religion above everything else and have the Bible play a role in their everyday decisions. The majority of people, however, are more concerned with the tangibles – the things that help them meet their everyday human needs (Ahlstrom, 2004).

            Because the church was not their primary concern, they were less forceful when it came to conversion than the Puritans. They were more concerned with survival and prosperity than the church, so they were more willing to accept those that could be deemed as outsiders. They recruited Presbyterians and other German and Swiss Protestants to move to Virginia. These newly moved settlers could be used as a form of protection against the Native Americans and the French. If an attack occurred, they knew they could be trusted to alert the rest of the English settlements. Allowing people from different churches was a small price to pay in order to have a little extra security (Olmstead, 1960).

            Ironically, the Puritans were the ones who sought out to form The City Upon the Hill, but the secularists were the ones who brought this idea to fruition. They were able to look past differences and “delighted in each other; made others’ conditions their own; rejoiced together, mourned together, labored and suffered together, always having before their eyes their commission and community in the work, as members of the same body” (Winthrop, 1630).

            If we jump ahead to 1750, “there were about 1,300 churches (chapels, meeting house, and parish buildings) in the colonies, or about one church per 800 of population” (Nellis, 2007, p. 33). Even if all the churches were completely full every Sunday, this still shows that the majority of people no longer attended church regularly. Numerous Founding Fathers have been quoted declaring the secularist views:

Ben Franklin said, “In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it.” Thomas Jefferson said, “There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.” John Adams said, “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.” Thomas Paine said, “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all;” George Washington said, “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.” Abraham Lincoln said, “The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession.” James Madison said, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise” (Sobel, 2011).

These are just a few of many quotes by our founders and they paint a very clear picture of a secularist view of the country they envisioned.

            If we fast forward again to 1789, we can skim through the proposed Bill of Rights to see again that secularism was the dominating view of that time. The First Amendment insures that never again will the United States be a theocracy by printing the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Bill of Rights, Amendment I). In fact, throughout the whole Constitution, the only mention of God or religion is the forbiddances of religious tests for public office and the establishment of religion.

            If we jump ahead yet again to today, we can analyze just how religious we are to get a clearer picture of the 18^th century. Although it is difficult to be precise, Hartford Institute for Religious Research estimates that there are about 350 thousand religious congregations in the United States (Hartford Institute). There are about 314 million citizens in the US which calculates to about 900 people per church. That is very similar to the church/population ratio of the late 18^th century. According to the National Congregations Study, the amount of weekly worshipers is about 56 million people, or 17.8% of the population. This more closely resembles Jamestown settlement secularists, as opposed to the Puritan settlements. The majority of US citizens label themselves as religious while only 17.8% of the entire population lists their religion as their top priority. Like Jamestown, today’s America is more concerned with fulfilling their needs and less concerned with religion.

            Was the government formed as a secular nation like we were told in school, or was America formed as a Theocracy? The evidence shows that both sides are correct. There were the Theocrats and the Secularists. Both played a positive and negative role in American history. The evidence also shows however, that what started more as a Theocracy shifted towards being more secular; it was at that time that the United States was formed. History is said to repeat itself and it is repeating again. We shifted from religious to secular over the course of the 17^th and 18^th centuries and we are going through a similar shift now. We are in a scientific push and science is answering the questions that were once declared as God. The majority of the world is becoming radically less religious and America is slowly following. We will hit a point in the near future where religion will lose the last strand of the rope it has tied around our government -- secularism will rise in its place.

           

Reference List

Ahlstrom, Sydney E.. (2004) A Religious History of the American People. New York:

Vail-Ballou  Press, Inc.

 

Frederick C. Drake (1968). American Quarterly. Vol. 20, No. pp. 694-725. The Johns Hopkins University Press

 

Glanvill, Joseph. Essay IV Against modern Sadducism in the matter of Witches and Apparitions in Essay on Several Important Subjects in Philosophy and Religion, 2nd Ed, London

Greer, Allan. (2000). The Jesuit Relations. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Kolchin, Peter. (1993). American Slavery 1619-1877. New York: Hill and Wang.

Kuppperman, Karen Ordahl. (2007). Major Problems in American Colonial History. Boston, MA: Wadsworth

 

Lepore, Jill. (1998). The Name of War. New York: First Vintage Books

 

Loewen, James W. (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. New York: Touchstone.

 

Middleton, Richard. (1992). Colonial America: A History, 1607-1760. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers

 

Morison, Samuel Eliot (1972). The Oxford History of the American People. New

York City: Mentor.

 

Nellis, Eric. (2007). The Long Road to Change: America’s Revolution, 1750-1820. Ontario: Canada Cataloguing in Publication.

 

Olmstead, Clifton E. (1960). History of Religion in the United States. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

 

Sobel, Robert. (2011). 20 Quotes from Historical Americans against the US being a Christian Nation. Examiner.com. Retrieved on June 28, 2013 from http://www.examiner.com/article/20-quotes-from-historical-americans-against-the-u-s-being-a-christian-nation

 

Wills, Gary. (2007). Head and Heart: A History of Christianity in America. New York: Penquin Group Inc.

 

Hartford Institute for Religious Study. Fast Facts about American Religion. Retrieved June 28, 2013 from http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#numcong