John Locke Pro Slavery Speech

To be rather blunt I have never condoned or even agreed to the fact that people enslaving others is morally correct. I am one to agree however that it would be gods doing to define people's enslavement by social class if it were ever in other words “ethical.” Being one of the great founding fathers of our inalienable rights, I still believe all are equal in a way that no one person would throw themselves into slavery under somebody else’s rule voluntarily. However, I believe there are few ways one can be enslaved.

Hi my name is John Locke I have been an influential philosopher especially on modern law, I was born august 29th in Wrington, United Kingdom. I have proved to be controversial on the topic but I am pro slavery. It was true, I participated in the slave trade but never did I myself own or have any form of slavery under my authority.

Capital punishment is what someone receives when they deserve the death penalty. “If I commit a crime worthy of death, that the individual or group I have harmed can choose to commute a sentence of death to a sentence of slavery.” I do believe that persons are equal and contain a right to choose, I also believe that if one does not have the right to take their own life, then nobody has the right to take his or her life, slavery is not death but punishment enough. Through trials and tribulations I can see one being turned into a slave because of their actions, but life to death is never approachable. People deserve to live in slavery to ensure proper punishment of a persons sin or true guilt.

When someone commits a crime that is deserving of a death sentence, these people are giving up their freedom. Once their freedom is given, consent is drawn to enslave this person, they lose the right to be free when the act of crime was committed.

If someone were to just be walking in the street and they get mugged or harassed by someone and this person in self defense were to kill the mugger, they also have taken his/her liberty. This man will not walk the street, eat food, or see his children again, his liberty was stripped when he was killed. One cannot take another's liberty because they themselves don't have the right to do so either. Slavery does not strip your freedom, one still lives to see another day but it takes away one liberty and freedom for a time being. The necessary thing; if you take someone's natural rights away, don't you deserve something taken from you as well.

After battles in war, people are captured. War captives if you will. These people also have rights and should not have their life, liberty taken from them but they were committing an act of wrong when they decided to fight against these enslavers. These people signed their liberty away with the army they approached. Still I do not condone slavery of others voluntarily or otherwise but for punishment that is deserving of death slavery is the only other option that will suffice. People don't deserve to die, they deserve life even if it be labor for work it is still security of life and freedom.

Speech Theories #8

When someone goes to read the constitution the first words they are going to read are… “We The People” shows that we are a country that is founded and given power from the people. I chose number 8 agreeing heavily with Mr. Steve Shiffrin in that the government deserves to be questioned by its people.

For instance if a government were to not interact with its people and was to only do things that the government feels is good… we wouldn't have our democracy it would be a modern day monarchy in the US. The United States is founded on the principle that the people would question and agree or disagree with the government, they are not supposed to be friends, they are supposed to give us the people the best chance at a thriving country. The people are to impose our ideals and make the government decide what is possible and reachable; we the people are the ones who create the law, establish who's in office, and create the foundation for a functioning government. The government does not function without the people.

For example, we have political parties. The democratic party and the republican party are both platforms of ideals, Ideals that are reflected by the people who we elect to take office because we believe they are going to do what “we” or “I” would do. The US government would not function if the people did not impose our ideals and voice on the government, we would be corrupt if we didn't.

There's no way that the government could make all the right choices, if they did then that would be a miracle. The citizens are what make the change, create laws, or start differences, not the one person who has done things only their way for the last 20 years. The people create the protest, the protest creates riot, and the riot creates the change. The people start the protest.

Religion and Slavery Blog- Skylar & John

The Bible is very contradicting in the views of slavery. We will discuss the possible arguments on why The Bible could be seen as pro or against slavery. Most were not “slaves” from their birth, or for their whole life, or because of their race—for instance, the Roman jurist Gaius (second century) claimed that most slaves were prisoners of war who actually would have been slaughtered if not made slaves.
Further, slavery was generally not organized by race but by circumstance and economics (for example, foreigners, debtors, and so on). (Exodus 21:16)

Why the bible could Pro Slavery

When discussing the Bible, people often only reflect the joy and good it brings; they don't really think about what the bible might have been justified for. In other words, the Bible has been believe it or not used as a justification for why slavery was “okay” and not demeaning or discriminative. One way people have used the Bible to do so, Bishop William Meade claims that if one is to commit an act of misdeed and not be seized, that person is getting justice from God. He would've been the only one to see the act committed. As well as, throughout the bible there people have been able to notice not once does the Bible condemn slavery. This can be questionable and also can be seen to where the argument comes from. It can also be questionable that in the book of Philemon, St. Paul, who returned to his “master” and claims it is not out of the ordinary to be a “servant” or “slave” as the second reference. Most of the people who had slaves were christians. Now, the claim has been made that saying slavery is anti-christian would also meet the remark that you're going against god if you believe this. So many were quite disputed on the topic, but there are many reasons for why the bible could've been justification for slavery.

Why the bible could be Anti Slavery

One could say that the bible is greatly opposed to slavery. An example of this would be the book of Philemon. It could be surprising to most people that the book of Philemon is not brought up often in reading and discussion. The book of Philemon was one of Paul’s letters to a slave owner about Onesimus; his runaway slave. If Philemon was solely pro-slavery what would you expect the apostle Paul to say? Strikingly, Paul instructs Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave . . . but as a dear brother”—and he appeals to Philemon to “receive him as you would receive me” (v. 17). Breaking this text down the apostle Paul rejects the slave to master relationship and constructs in its place a brother to brother relationship. The slave is treated with all dignity and fairness like a brother would. Furthermore even before the actual institutional abolishment of slavery, “the work of the gospel abolishes the assumptions and prejudices that make slavery possible.”

Whether or not you believe that the Bible was pro or against slavery, it can be seen in different lights by people who all think differently. Personally, I believe it was a test to see if people were truly good at heart or were not willing to serve others as God served us today and on the cross. However you see fit, the argument will never end because truly no one knew and still wont, there will be truly no verdict because there's no one who can ask the creators.

Supreme Court

People hear quite a lot about the Supreme Court and cases they deliberate on, but who really are they? After getting to watch the video and with some of my prior knowledge about the Supreme Court truly I think i've found an answer. The judicial branch of government is what really makes the entire checks and balances thing work, without them the government would be sitting ducks with nowhere to go. The supreme court was created back in 1801 with Mr. John Marshall as the first ever chief justice of the court. At first it was an idea that people believed was going to work but it wasn't a definite answer, until the case of Marbury Vs Madison. Whilst establishing judicial review; the case also showed the reason and made the Supreme Court a part of our federal government. This case established the precedent for why the court was needed.

Without honestly really knowing it, the Supreme Court might just be the most vital part of our government. I'm well aware they aren't the primary law makers but even still they are possibly the most vital part of the team. Now the second question may be, where does the supreme court even receive its full empowerment?? Just like any other form of government, it relies on the consent of the governed. However, It is different. When someone looks at the executive branch or congress they see the people meant to help the commonwealth of all people. On the other hand, looking at the judicial branch someone looks at them like the people who are protecting the people from false accusations or protecting our inalienable rights. In a way they are what could stand in the way of someone's freedom, that job doesn't seem easy to me.

What I learned about the Supreme Court is that all the justices decide on cases together and have to be unanimous in their decisions in order for a verdict to take place. They meet in a small room not much bigger than a classroom and sit and deliberate amongst themselves and review the cold hard facts of every single case to make sure there isn't something they missed. Also I noticed the justices shake hands after every case due to their respect for each other's views, personally that is just phenomenal to see with how politics has been going recently. I think the most important takeaway from all of what is the “Supreme Court” ; there would be or we all would still be debating freedom to this day if the judicial branch wasn't a thing. They grant or secure what we hold to be our freedom. Our faith is in the court to sustain and keep our citizens' lives fair and equal.