Freedom Ride

please help!

"Freedom is obedience to necessity" – meaning that beings are free when they act in acordance with the dialectical forces which brought them into being. There is no sense in asserting your freedom to be a rational consuming individualist prior to modern capitalism and state security; this would just lead to misery and enslavement.

The state has different roles according to which epoch Hegel is discussing. He considered that the 19th Century liberal bourgeois state was the apotheosis of freedom, and the culmination of history. This is, famously, where his erstwhile disciple Marx took issue with him.

Freedoms are listed in the Bill of Rights. Equality is covered in the 14th Amendment.

There is one in particular by Lenina that is something like we have the Freedom to be happy or something…

Please include page numbers!

I have not read Brave New World but here are a number of sites that should help you with it.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/
http://www.gradesaver.com/brave-new-world/
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Brave-New-World.id-45.html
http://www.online-literature.com/aldous_huxley/brave_new_world/
http://www.huxley.net/studyaid/bnwbarron.html

For example whilst the UK and Sweden both have an official religion people are free to pratice how they like, and minority religous rights are protected..

However in France and Turkey whilst there is no state religion .and all religious symbals are banned from many public area.s..

Does that necessarily meant they are more free?
In England a women has the right protected by law to wear a hijab yet in French girls are not allowed to wear hijabs to school (or any any other religous symbals… In Turkey women in hijab can not go to university or work in a government building…

Is removal of religious symbals really a sign of fredom? Are you offended by a Jewish skull cap (In France they can not wear that to school)?

Or does a truely democratic country mean freedom to practice a religion aswell?

In my view, a truly "free" nation is one that allow its citizens to decide for themselves how to live "the good life." By this criterion, no society is perfectly free because every society (out of necessity, perhaps – to preserve the social order) has laws and limitations on human behavior. We can consider a nation to be substantially free, however, if it permits varying conceptions of the good life to "compete" with one another in the marketplace of ideas without interference by the state.

Erik (above) misses the point of your question. By banning religious symbols in schools or government buildings, nations like France and Turkey are being less than free because they are not permitting these conceptions of the good life to compete fairly and freely with one another. If a Muslim girl wishes to wear the hijab to school, why on earth should the French government forbid it? Ostensibly, the answer is found in the motto of the Revolution – liberty, equality, brotherhood – but when it comes down to it, the French are putting their revolutionary vision of an egalitarian society ABOVE the desire of Muslims to set aside their women from those who do not dress modestly and who put their beauty on display for others.

Whether a state has an official religion or not has no bearing upon whether it is a substantially free state.

One final note: perhaps I am betraying my bias as an American, but I believe that religious freedom is one thing that we have done quite well. By constitutional fiat, the U.S. has no state-sponsored religion, and I believe that my nation does an outstanding job of allowing its citizens to choose their own conception of the good life. I do believe, however, that that freedom is under attack in some ways by some forces in our government.

I understand the separation of church and state and its’ importance. However, if college students are getting reprimanded for having prayer groups in university dorm rooms, children are prohibited from talking about God (or whatever they believe in) at school, or people are prohibited to display signs of their religion on lockers or desks at work, haven’t we trampled on their freedom of religion as well? Where’s the line?

Good question with many possible answers!!

But I tend to view religious expression along the same lines as cigarette smoking. It seems that you can do what you like, but if it’s offensive to someone else, the non-smoker has priority.

This is a very crude model, but maybe you see what i mean.

and why?

It would start in the state courts since it is a state law, then can be appealed to the federal courts since it deals with the U.S. Constitution.

seems sad that us involves itself only in popular wars. but wont touch africa etc where military intervention wud help millions of lives be better
please the question relates to equality and us morals in foreign plicy . dont give me a arab bashn . think of africa and its misery that is totally ignored as the us cant see any big oil, votes or , corporate growth

America wanted the Palestinians to have a free democratic elections but when they did and voted overwhelming for Hamas America suddenly cried out that Hamas were a terrorist group.And yet America seem to turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by Israel for the last 60 odd years. Why did they ignore all these crimes or did they just chose to do so to applease their Zionists friends ? Whatever the reason they MUST have known what Israel were doing and yet continue to veto any criticism made at the UN In fact over 60 times. Take a look at this list of just some of Israels war crimes and judge for yourself. Is it any wonder that after all this time Hamas finally started to take action in 2001.

"give me liberty or give me death"-
that important!

a) via a large BACS payment from the UK taxpayer.

b) by humble professionally trained terrorist negotiators.

c) as a result of the unintended hilarity generated by farcical International Office diplomacy.

Vote now!

D. = the yachtsmen were sponsored by Dubai.
Dubai is the banking center for most of Islam.

politics and history

Look at the news once. That should tell you enough that it greatly effects everything.