Jacob Daniel Weaver

Tag: politics

  • Further Down the Slope

    Born into a refugee camp in the West Bank, Mohsen Mahdawi achieved the dream of many — to attend one of the top universities in the world, Columbia University. The Columbia Motto touts, “In Lumine Tuo Videbimus Lumen,” or “In Thy Light Shall We See Light.” While “in thy light,” Mahdawi saw the light of attacks on his people. He witnessed Israeli attacks on his people, fellow Palestinians who had nothing to do with the Humas attacks. Mahdawi is a permanent US citizen, who enacted his right to freedom of speech. Onlookers may argue his views are misguided, but they are his views, nonetheless. In turn for participating in his freedom of thought and expression, Mahdawi is now facing deportation — a month prior to his graduation.

    Protesting from the beginning of the current Israel-Hamas conflict until March 2024, Mahdawi spoke up for his people who were under daily bombardment. He also spoke against the idea that Israel was “owed” the Palestinian lands due to biblical writings. While I believe war over religion is a vestigial idea, outdated and immoral, these groups still choose to fight over the words written some 2,000 years ago. Although these words are ancient, the lives lost consistently from their reverberations are fresh. Blood nourishes the plants growing as I write these words. It is obvious why someone would protest these conflicts and seek for an ultimate end to a war which has continued throughout the last century. 

    The group Mahdawi was a part of stated, “violence is the only path.”  They went about their disagreements in the wrong way, which I see as grounds for potential deportation. However, it should be a sign of misunderstanding by the current administration as to the seriousness of the current conflict, and of their misguided mission. When you witness, as Mahdawi did, one group of people attacking your people, your obvious answer is to retaliate in the same manner. While this comes across for Mahdawi and his group as retaliating against “Zionists,” therefore inherently “antisemitic,” it is not as clear cut as that statement inserts. If Israel were a Christian state, the group would be Christianophobic. His group is determined to protect their people from those who are attacking it. The White House should understand this fully, as can be seen in the Executive Order put out on February 6th of this year. This Executive Order, “Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias,” states: “It is the policy of the United States, and the purpose of this order, to protect the religious freedoms of Americans… .” It goes on to cite the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which prohibits government interference with our right as Americans to exercise our religion of choice. Therefore, deportation of those, such as Rümeysa Öztürk and Rasha Alawieh, who are exercising their right to hold beliefs in their selected religious affiliation is absurd. If they are not inciting violence, and are not actively participating in violence, their deportation is unconstitutional. 

    While Mahdawi and his group co-leader, Mahmoud Khalil, will be deported because their incitation of violence, we must be very conscious to those being deported because of their beliefs alone. Calls for violence should never be tolerated, although simply voicing support for one’s people — especially under ongoing oppression — must not be equated with criminality. Imagine an administration who finds Christianity as a “violent religion,” and decides to remove them from the country. Over half the population will be under attack for what is their constitutional right to religious freedom and expression. 

  • On the Banning of Books

    A practice often used to silence opposition of a belief, banning books is not a new practice. However, the latest list of banned books as released by the current administration is particularly disgraceful. For a nation founded on freedom of thought, it is very clear this freedom is encroached upon when viewing the banned book list. For starters, I do not claim to agree with the beliefs and ideologies which can be applied to many of the books on the list. I have not read most of these books. This does not matter. What is important about this list is it shows a clear suppression of beliefs which differ from those held by the current administration. This should be alarming. When a belief differs from one you hold, the reaction should be to understand why this is the case and appreciate the differences. Not censor and restrict these beliefs. Many of the banned books do not discuss differences in religious belief, or even political belief. They speak on ideologies of psychology, sociology, and racial interactions. These issues are ones left to interpretation in many cases, with authors who are speaking about their view of the world. I would like to discuss one specific book, Only Words, to show the issues which come from banning books. 

    In Only Words, Catharine MacKinnon, JD, PhD, a Yale graduate, speaks for the banning of pornography due to the vast amounts of sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, and rape which occur in this industry. This book, published in 1993, must be read in the context of the years preceding its publication, and in from the viewpoint of the author. Even more, attempts should be made to extend those beliefs through time to see what changes have been made. Either the argument has strengthened over time, or it has weakened. It nonetheless is situated in history, cemented in a time where conditions differed from those current. I cannot comment on the climate of the time a book was written, even if I lived during such time because memory is fragile. What I can speak on is the statistics: During the early 1990’s, rape occurrences were very high. So much so that it was termed a “rape epidemic.” To ban a book of such relevance to a given period is robbing the present of its ability to understand historical events and climates. In Only Words, the author is advocating for the banning of the pornography industry. While banning any industry, even pornography, is a difficult argument to make due to the freedom and competency that adults are due, the argument still can (and should) be allowed to be made. The statistics today still agree with MacKinnon’s argument: 1 out of 6 American women have been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. While these statistics do not speak directly to the rates in pornographic films, it isn’t too far off to assume they are similar in occurrence.

     The belief that a book like this should be banned is egregious. Who could logically say this argument is so detrimental to the population that it should not be allowed? Furthermore, who can make the argument that an adult competent enough to choose whether they should act in a pornographic film is not competent enough to read the book and decide for themselves whether the books argument is justifiable? 

    This is a specific example picked out of a list of 381 banned books, but the argument can be extrapolated to many of the other books on the list. Banning a book is an outrageous way to attack an ideology, because a book is peacefully protesting a particular belief. The act of banning admits defeat to the argument being made, a cowering reaction showing the enforcers inability to persuade the readers against the viewpoints being discussed. If you do not agree with the viewpoints in a book, the most effective rebuttal would be to write a book against it. Alarms should be going off. Banning books is often the first step in removing freedom from us. In a country founded on freedom, every person under the American flag should be allotted freedom of thought and expression.

    list of banned books by trump administration (From New York Times)Download