A Civil Society

The ideals of civil liberties in our society have greatly changed over the years. Two major ideologies of civil liberties that will be discussed in this paper are the ideals of equal rights of due process and that of the rights of the individual to practice whatever form of religion they choose without the encroachment of another's system of beliefs.

The first case is that of Quitman County versus the state of Mississippi. The county claims to have too little funding in order to provide adequate legal council to all persons prosecuted by law. Currently the county has two lawyers assigned to handle the defense of all cases in the county. These two lawyers are paid a flat rate of $1,350 a month to handle all cases that come its way. This money is to be used to cover all trials, appeals, investigators, experts, all overhead costs and it is the personal salary of each individual lawyer. Needless to say, when these two lawyers are looking at their average of roughly 30 cases a year, the money runs a little thin. The constitution calls for all citizens to have the right to a fair trial and to be provided with legal council should they not be able to afford any on their own. This, unfortunately, is a little vague when attempting to determine the legal prowess of the appointed council. How good is good enough? In Quitman County's case, the lawyers just aren't taking the cake. Past defendants claim to feel as if they are merely being processed through the legal system, instead of getting their fair shot at justice. It can be very easy to say from a possible defendant's standpoint that you would want a hard working, experienced, and dedicated lawyer acting as your council. This scenario would be the ideal setting and it is what many local and state authorities are calling for. Unfortunately, this kind of council costs money.

On the other side of the fence we have the state of Mississippi. Unfortunately, it is one of the more "not-so-well-off" states in the United States of America. The state government simply does not have the money to throw at their counties to provide for the ideal level of legal council. The general consensus is that the burden of local legal council should be placed upon local money. Both practices are used by roughly half the states in the United States. Unfortunately, not all states have the kind of money to afford proper legal council for all of their counties, and all counties don't have the abilities to raise the funds necessary either. So where do we draw the line? Mississippi, along with 27 other states, believes that the burden is on that of the local authorities, but this simply isn't good enough in Quitman, and many others, counties. This civil liberty of a provided defense to those being prosecuted by the law is indeed a worthy cause. Being state and locally funded is a wonderful way to go about this system, but as in many cases with other rights and programs, simply not enough. There is a point where the national government should step in and up the ante of social reformation. This liberty is, after all, granted specifically to the citizens of the United States in the Constitution. Where the money just isn't available for proper legal council the burden should rightfully fall back onto the federal level. The Constitution calls for all citizens of the Untied States to have equal legal protection, not just the citizens of Indiana, New York, or California. It is the government's duty to step up in the form of block grants to help counties and states provide the proper, adequate level of legal protection that all citizens of the United States are equally entitled to.

Our second case of the day deals with the pledge of allegiance. Here we have a one Dr. Newdow, atheist, demanding to the Supreme Court his equal share in religious freedom. His daughter in grade school, like many other children at this educational level around the country, has to recite the pledge of allegiance before the day begins. This pledge, as we all should know, has the phrase "one nation under God" interjected into it. I say interjected because this particular phrase was not originally in the pledge, yet added fifty years ago at the height of Cold War tensions in an effort to display that America wasn't a Godless Communism. Dr. Newdow argues that this isn't constitutionally fair to his belief systems to force his daughter to say the pledge with the phrase "one nation under God" every day. Although all students have the right not to say the pledge, Newdow feels that America is telling his daughter that his ideas of a Godless universe are wrong on a daily basis. Under the first amendment of the constitution, all citizens are granted the freedom of religion without persecution from the government. For an atheist however, having to vow yourself to a God you don't believe in just to show your loyalty to your country can be a little bit unsettling. It is truly a case of the beliefs of a few being infringed by the beliefs of many.

From a government's standpoint, the phrase "one nation under God" has become quite acceptable and popular to the people since its addition in the Cold War. However, it seems to me a clear violation of the ideals of church and state being separate. The pledge is a large part of our country and our heritage. The interjection of "one nation under God" not only changed a historical pledge but infringed on constitutional rights at the same time. It was sort of a two for one as far as infringements go. Civil liberties must be applied to all peoples and groups, no matter how small or unfavorable they are. This is the meaning of a civil society, maintaining a society where all citizens are on an equal playing field and free from the oppression of other citizens and peoples. In my opinion, the controversial phrase should be removed from the pledge, returning it to its former state, the way it was before the Cold War change fifty years ago. As Dr. Newdow said to the Supreme Court, "and I'm hoping the court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all."