While it seems nearly impossible to imagine life in the United States without all the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition), I feel that the freedom we could most afford to live without is freedom of petition. When pondering this question, I quickly eliminated three of the options–religion, speech and press–feeling that they are essential to the democracy that we have today. As a staunch proponent of the separation of church and state, I feel that the government should take absolutely no stance on religion. Without the freedom to speak freely and to criticize the government, we really don’t have much of a democracy at all. A democracy is supposed to be a government that is, “by the people and for the people,” so censoring the people would create the exact opposite of that. Finally, without freedom of the press, the people would lose an outlet with which they can express their free speech and be properly informed on what is happening in the country. Thus, I was left a choice between living without freedom of assembly or freedom of petition. I came to the decision that freedom of petition was the one I felt we could live without the easiest. I decided this because I feel that, if people have the right to free speech and free press in addition to the freedom to assemble, to come together in a peaceful manner in the name of a particular cause or belief, they can still make a similar impact to what a petition would have. When someone speaks out against something, writes something in the press, or a group comes together to protest against something, these people are publicly advocating for change in a certain area. With all these other rights in place, the American people could still generate enough pressure on whoever their message is to (government, company, etc.) to produce their desired change without the need for the right to petition.