“A secular sovereign overseeing all religions equally and without bias towards one faith or another provides a mechanism by which universal religious and rational truths can be nurtured, and society can flourish as a consequence.”

Though originally published anonymously, the secular doctrines which comprise Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza’s famous work, Tractatus Theological-Political (1670), have since solidified the enlightenment thinker as a founding father of secularism and one of the original champions of church and state segregation. Spinoza believed, in an ideal world, that the authorities of religion and rational thought should be entirely independent of one another. Theology, Spinoza argued, “should not be subordinate to reason, nor reason to theology, but rather that each has its own domain” (Tractatus, pg. 190). But does this logic have a practical application in society, where rationality and religion are in constant conflict with one another, and where religious entities continue to stake claims to absolute truth, even in the face of contradicting rational evidence? Can the two entities co-exist separate but equally, without one being subservient to another, and would this model serve the greatest good of society? Though I theoretically agree with Spinoza’s sentiment, I believe a secular, democratic government, with foundations in rationality, and put in place to ensure individual freedoms proves vital to protecting citizens from the radical excesses and illogical manifestations of religious belief. Interestingly enough, even Spinoza appears to understand the impossibility of a fully binary system where religion and reason never spill over into one another’s purviews, and strongly advocates for a democratic and non-religiously affiliated governing force throughout Tractatus. How then can Spinoza believe religion and rationality should “both should be able to rule their own realms in the greatest harmony” (Tractatus, pg. 188), while simultaneously advocating for a secular sovereign to oversee and moderate religious behavior? Unlike governments controlled by one singular faith, secular governments have a less confined capacity to protect free expression, religious practice of various differing faiths, and personal freedoms for all those engaged in the social contract, paving a path for both religion and rationality to coexist somewhat amicably. As Spinoza learned from his own censorship and subsequent excommunication, religious zealots (and particularly those in power) can view rational thought as an enemy to faith, prohibiting the ability to scrutinize scripture and analyze both contextual background and lingual interpretations. But reason should not be considered an enemy of religion, and a government’s allowance of religious assessment, such as Spinoza’s repeated critiques of scripture within Tractatus, proves vital to uncovering a deeper understanding and appreciation for how religion should be incorporated into and thrive in modern society. Spinoza acknowledges the necessity of a governing force, serving both the needs for societal stability and protection against danger, but throughout history, countries ruled by religious authority have time and time again proven to endanger individual freedoms and even the very religious liberties they purport to protect. Though both Spinoza and I champion for religious groups should be overseen by a non-religious entity, this by no means makes faith subordinate or inferior to secular governance. …

Contrary to popular interpretations, the creation story actually depicts an egalitarian utopia between men and women, an ideal that is entirely conducive with both feminism as well as the progressive teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

Prominent interpretations of the Biblical creation story throughout history, and more specifically the characterizations of Eve, the first woman in Biblical creation, have led to more catastrophic abuses and exploitations of women than arguably any other interpretations of scripture. From 13th century philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, who believed Eve to be a “defective and misbegotten” male (Summa Theologiae, Ia q.92, a.1, Obj. 1), to 2nd century theologians like Tertullian who branded Eve “the devil’s gateway” and the “unsealer of that forbidden tree” (On the Apparel of Women, 196–212 C), powerful thought leaders throughout history have exploited the creation story for their own misogynist purposes. According to these interpretations, Eve’s apparent inferiority, stupidity, and wickedly seductive nature are inherent characteristics to be found, and feared, in all womankind. Even later verses in the Bible cite the nature of Eve as reason to never let women, “take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else” (1 Timothy, 2:11–15). But the question begs to be asked, is the creation story of the Bible inherently sexist, as these famous interpretations suggest? If not, why would discovering a more accurate characterization of Eve still be relevant today, over two millennia since Genesis was written? The most widely known expositions of Eve, and the subsequent harm those misogynist expositions have since inflicted upon millions of women throughout history, suggest that no flattering, progressive, or feminist alternative interpretation exists for the first woman in creation. Upon further reflection and analysis, however, one finds that the creation story actually depicts an egalitarian utopia between men and women, an ideal that is entirely conducive with both feminism as well as the progressive teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. A slew of misunderstandings, including the misinterpretation of the ancient words used to describe Eve, may explain why she is so wrongly characterized as subordinate to Adam by God’s design. Eve’s choice to eat the apple has often been used as a brush to paint women as impressionable, stupid, or easily deceived, but her actions may more accurately suggest her capacity for intelligence rather than her naivete. Eve’s choice to offer the apple to Adam has routinely been cited as evidence for a women’s instinct towards seduction and treachery, but this logic does not hold up at all under scrutiny. Critics may argue, and rightfully so, that even if a more egalitarian interpretation of the creation story can be found, the stories surrounding women in both the Old Testament and many verses in the New Testament seem wildly contradictory to egalitarian ideals. …

When it comes to free speech, it is not the friendly diplomats but rather the harsh provocateurs like Larry Flynt who test the boundaries of expression, preserving our rights in the process.

Is Hustler Magazine founder Larry Flynt a depraved menace to society, or a civil rights hero? As the founder of a porn magazine notorious for its hardcore depictions of sex and its provocative cultural and political commentary, honoring Flynt with the title of civil rights champion may seem absurd to many.

But in the 1988 landmark case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court reaffirmed and expanded the “actual malice” precedent set forth in 1964’s New York Times v. Sullivan, and Flynt’s win marked a historic leap forward in the progression of First Amendment civil rights. After Hustler Magazine published an ad satirically portraying famed religious leader, Jerry Falwell, as an incestuous drunk who slept with his mother, Falwell sued for libel, invasion of privacy, and the intentional affliction of emotional distress. Though Falwell initially won damages solely for emotional distress in the lower court, the Supreme Court shockingly sided with Hustler in a staggering 8–0 decision, stating how public figures cannot recover for the intentional affliction of emotional distress without proof of actual malice. In other words, unless a publisher knowingly made false statements or statements in reckless disregard for the truth, the court agreed that the utility of satire and the ability to criticize our public figures far outweighs the importance of any resulting emotional distress. Religious communities, conservative political leaders, anti-pornography activists, and countless other groups find a common enemy in Flynt for promulgating what they believe to be indecent and obscene filth. But regardless of one’s personal views on Flynt, his publications, or pornography in general, Flynt undoubtedly altered the course of First Amendment jurisprudence, the effects of which are just as relevant today as when the decision was made over thirty years ago. The court’s ruling to protect the satirizing of public figures proves invaluable in preserving the rights and voices of citizens as well as the free press, and in the present era, these rights directly prevent both the dangerous escalations of political and cultural debate as well as tyrannical speech suppression. Flynt may be an unlikely, as well as an unsavory civil rights champion; nevertheless, the famed pornographer rightly deserves to wear the title. …

In the fight to eliminate prostitution entirely, prostitutes become collateral damage.

No job on earth ignites a fury of heated discussion, impassioned stances, and extreme polarization quite like prostitution. For thousands of years, the so-called “oldest profession” has inspired innumerable debates on morality, sexuality, individual liberty, and the rights of women, pitting traditionalists against progressives, abolitionists against autonomists, and even feminists against other feminists. The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates there to be 40 million sex workers worldwide, over 99 percent of whom are women (ILO, 2016). While the act of, and moral philosophies behind, prostitution remain widely debated, a worldwide consensus exists regarding the need to combat rampant abuses and dangers resulting from a career in prostitution. Whether one sees all sex workers as victims of abuse and exploitation, or one believes prostitution to be just another expression of female autonomy and personal liberty, advocates and State legislators on every side of the discussion proclaim their philosophies, moral reasonings, and legal models to be in the best interests of the sex workers themselves. While the United States (excluding Nevada) and Saudi Arabia criminalize both the buying and selling of sex, other countries such as Sweden and Canada have adopted what has been more commonly referred to as the Nordic model, lifting legal punishments for the seller but criminalizing the buyer. Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands opt for a legalized approach, and since the implementation of the Prostitution Reform Act in 2003 (PRA), New Zealand remains the only country to decriminalize both the buying as well as the selling of sex. Compelling and thought-provoking arguments exist in favor of each legal model, with objectives ranging from upholding traditional values to championing the rights of women. Still, the question remains, which policy proves most effective for protecting sex workers? A consensus among a large group of human rights organizations and NGOs around the world has emerged favoring full decriminalization of consensual adult sex work. This group includes Amnesty International, Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, Global Commission on HIV and the Law, Human Rights Watch, UNAIDS, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, and World Health Organization (WHO). Although advocates for criminalization, the Nordic model, and full legalization all emphasize a dire necessity to fortify the vulnerable and marginalized sex work community, all of these models punish, and even endanger, the very sex workers they purport to protect. The abolitionist approach of criminalizing sex work manifests in abuse, harsh stigma, and societal victim-blaming from both within and outside the criminal justice system. The Nordic model, often touted as the neo-abolitionist and more progressive approach, still inadvertently penalizes sex workers by continuing to criminalize buyers and therefore illegalizing half of a sex worker’s labor transaction. Full legalization, while a favorable approach to threatening sex workers with criminal punishment, also leaves many prostitutes vulnerable and unprotected when unable to meet strict government standards and criteria for attaining labor licenses. Full decriminalization by no means implies a complete deregulation of sex work; rather, the approach eliminates all laws which intervene with consensual adult prostitution related actives, unless other laws apply. …

In his 1764 publication of the groundbreaking and provocative Philosophical Dictionary, French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire poses an ever-provocative question: “must we not carefully distinguish the religion of the state from theological religion?” (Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary). Though a Diest believer in God himself, the name Voltaire remains synonymous with vehement religious criticism, and his expositions of the inherent corruption birthed from an intertwining of theology and governmental power continue to be hailed as the genesis of modern secular reasoning. Voltaire believed religion to be the enemy of reason, so much so that he espoused the idea of an absolute monarch, or enlightened despot, rising to power and overthrowing the oppressive theocratic empire. Voltaire spent a great deal of his life criticizing, satirizing, and championing against the excesses of religious power, and having been born into a world where the mere act of criticizing the church was enough to find yourself in exile or imprisoned (as Voltaire found himself routinely throughout his life), it comes as no small wonder that Voltaire saw religion as the barrier of progress, science, and fundamental liberties. In a scathing condemnation, Voltaire describes theological religion as, “the source of all imaginable follies and disturbances,” and, “the enemy of mankind” (Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary), a statement with which I emphatically disagree. Thanks in no small part to the philosophies of Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers who mercilessly battled for the freedom from religious persecution throughout the 18th century, I grew up surrounded by individuals of every religion whose beliefs, for the most part, arguably shaped their moral compass and sense of self for the better. However, while Voltaire’s appreciation and understanding of theology differs vastly from mine, we both share a fervent belief in the necessity of full segregation between religion and state for the purposes of advancing human rights worldwide. Legal systems dominated by one religion hold no capacity to regulate their own abuses and excesses, political interests fueled by religious superpowers have and continue to suppress societal growth, and in the fight for a more tolerant world, no religion should be legally exempt from the kind of scrutiny, criticism, and even hatred found in Voltaire. As Voltaire aptly wrote, “liberty of thought is the life of the soul”, and where thought is stifled by religious dogma and intimidation, human progress consequently suffers as well. …

In one of his most compelling and recognized works, Civilization and its Discontents, Sigmund Freud ponders the utility and origins of sexual restrictions within a civilization and questions why monogamous sexual relationships between a man and a woman came to be so glorified, as well as how extra-marital sex, homosexual relations, and polyamorous relationships (among other a-typical sexual encounters) became vilified societal practices. Freud believed the very nature of civilization to be restrictive on human beings and to inevitably cause “discomfort”. In Civilization, he notes how impossible it is, “to overlook the extent to which civilization is built up upon a renunciation of instinct” (Freud, Civilization), and with regards to human sexuality in particular, he believed, “the sexual life of civilized man is notwithstanding severely impaired” (Freud, Civilization). However, since Civilization was written in 1929, many sexual practices such as extra-marital sex, homosexual acts, and even gay marriage have lost their once tabooed mystique. But is Freud correct in his belief that societal repressions of sexuality between consenting adults are unwarranted and harmful? In tracing America’s historically complicated relationship with sexual norms, one can easily reach Freud’s conclusion that the societal repression of extra-marital sex and homosexuality, amongst other a-typical sexual practices, “cuts off a fair number [of people] from sexual enjoyment, and so becomes the source of serious injustice” (Freud, Civilization). Up until the “sexual liberation” movements of the 60’s, the undue shame associated with extra-marital sex prevented individuals, and especially women, from exploring and enjoying their sex lives for centuries. Guilt and harmful misconceptions have plagued the practice of homosexuality throughout history, and the increasingly favorable societal views of homosexuality not only help to dispel harmful myths surrounding gay behavior but can also save lives in the process. …

Known as one of the founding fathers of classical liberalism and neoclassical utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill penned the legendary essay, On Liberty, in which he insists, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, On Liberty). Put simply, one can move a fist in any direction except for the purposes of hitting a face other than one’s own, but how does this philosophy apply to free speech? The United States inarguably has the most extensive freedoms and allowances for speech of any country in the world, and Mill’s philosophies on the need for unfettered speech and expression provide the bedrock on which our First Amendment jurisprudence is still interpreted today. However, many argue that this libertarian interpretation of the First Amendment holds little overall utility in comparison to the benefits of legally prohibiting hateful and offensive speech. After all, why should controversial and inflammatory philosophers, scientists, or even comedians be offered a public platform for their ideas and rhetoric? When hateful, bigoted words can feel like a knife in one’s side, why shouldn’t speech equate to violence, and why should the government not punish hate speech accordingly? Isn’t true liberalism progressed with the rejection of such hatred? The answer to these questions can be discovered through Mill’s method by which to gauge the regulation of harm, known as the Harm Principle, which consists of two steps. If no harm to others manifests from a person’s actions, any such actions find protection under the Harm Principle. However, if harm does result from an action, then society must gauge the overall utility of this harm and choose to act accordingly. In applying Mill’s Harm Principle to modern and pertinent questions regarding free speech, one discovers that Mill’s libertarian ideals regarding speech and expression, while at times controversial, uncomfortable, and even hurtful, are of vital importance and hold invaluable utility in the pursuit of a functioning and civil society. The quest for truth and rational thought, whether in scientific discovery or in religious and philosophical debate, requires the potential to cause offense, for no intellectual discussion of substance lacks a healthy amount of controversy, and many truths which modern society now accepts without question were at one time or another considered harmful, hateful, or even illegal. While words have an undeniable capacity to wound, degrade, and cause harm, taking offense must be separated from true harm as speech is the only mechanism by which human beings are able to resolve conflict without resorting to physical violence. And while listening to hateful speech can at times be excruciating to bear, progressive ideals and true liberalism only benefit from more opportunities for speech and debate, not less, and the libertarian approach to free speech allows for the marketplace of ideas in which civil liberties have been fought for and won throughout history. …