freedom of religion.
freedom of speech.
freedom of choice.
freedom of thought.
freedom of expression.
I believe “Freedom of” is a privilege. And I believe we forget that thought sometimes.
And even more so.
It is not freedom from responsibility.
We have an amazing country we live in (despite all its warts). All you have to do is travel a little and you can see the obvious differences and the sheer luxury of life we have versus many other places in the world. Our middle class society ain’t middle in other countries.
But that isn’t this post.
This is about freedom and responsibility … here … in the good ole US of A.
No. we don’t have it perfect yet. I am not sure we ever will. But the fact we have a country where there is hope for all aspects of freedom is pretty amazing. We have screwed some things up (and also fixed some of the screwups) and we forge on debating freedom boundaries but never debating eliminating it.
Freedom is scary to non-democratic (or derivatives of democracy) countries. We, here, are a plural society. We accept more than one idea. That is freedom. And that scares the crap out of a lot of other countries and their belief systems.
That insures freedom is a responsibility. Some may call it a burden. I would suggest a privilege.
So. A beautiful place to begin.
The American Constitution’s First Amendment is a ‘freedom of’ case study:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Beautifully written. What this says is that Congress will make no law to curtail neither speech nor the ability to participate in the religion of your choice.
.
Ah. Let me begin with Freedom of speech (because I do snap at some people who I believe abuse his freedom).
Here is the challenge (beyond the fact most people like to talk rather than listen).
Just Because You Can doesn’t Mean You Should.
One of the responsibilities of living in a free society is having rights, but knowing when to use them. Saying abusive or inflammatory things just because one can is not responsible behavior. I fully believe in the freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Voltaire had it right, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
So basically, I may disagree vehemently with what someone is saying. But I cannot disagree that they have the right to say it.
It is interesting. After I starting writing this there was a brief article in The Economist titled “the downside of freedom of speech.” The article talked about overly racist and anti-Semitic tirades disguised as ads aired on local radio. And legally there is nothing to stop them. But even the Economist pointed out the messaging is so wrong it becomes difficult to understand how we are not permitted to say “stop. that is just wrong.” (oh. we all know … if we say no there where do we stop?).
Anyway. So ‘freedom of’ can wander into a values discussion (which is murky territory).
I guess the point of this (at least this part of the post) is while I agree people have the right to say their point of view I also think that in the case of hateful rhetoric that the speaker should be held accountable for irresponsibility in expressing those views. That there is a responsibility in HOW you state your point of view.
I personally believe sensationalizing your point of view with the intent of shocking to be heard is insidious. I put it in the same category of shouting just so you can be louder than anyone else. Or naming a higher price simply so you can negotiate another price. I know they happen and I know I don’t like it.
Ok. As for freedom of religion? This is kind of “part 2” to what I suggested with the pledge of allegiance (reverting back to original pledge of allegiance and dropping ‘one nation under god).
I am not anti god and I do believe our founding fathers in general were some sort of Christian derivative in their thinking. However. In general I believe they were smart enough to understand what brought most people to America originally was freedom from religious persecution. Any religious persecution … there were no caveats like “well, as long as you are Christian.”
In fact, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (in their respective legislative roles at the time) were very specific in the American war against Tripoli that it was not a war of religious ideology (United States supported a country’s right to pursue religious beliefs) but rather it was a war for freedom of trade:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, 4 Nov 1796.
I guess I imagine I believe that each country has a right to manage its own country in the way it seeks to govern it.
Here, the United States put a stake in the ground with the constitution and its forefather’s insightful thinking (it is an amazing document that stands the test of time). We believe in freedom of religion. We actually believe in freedom of choice (not just religion). As stated earlier we believe in freedom of ideas.
And, ultimately, I imagine with that comes a responsibility to stand up for human rights (when people are persecuted for their choices – religion included).
Oops. That means going someplace with soldiers and protecting those rights. Uh oh. Different post.
So. This responsibility thing I keep bringing up (tied to our ‘freedom of’ beliefs).
Why do I believe HOW we as a country live, eat and breathe ‘freedom of’ is important?
Well.
Because we are a role model.
That is our role in the world whether we like it or not.
We are a “freedom of” country.
The moment we absolve ourselves of that role is the moment we change what our forefathers had in mind for the country.
And believe it or not I think it is what sets us apart. “under god” is a choice America permits its citizens to make. Not dictate it as law (or criteria) to be a citizen. You can say anything you want and believe what you want. And it is not dictated as a law.
Like it or not.
Agree with it or not.
But “freedom of” is who we are as a country.
And “freedom of” is a privilege.
It is also a responsibility.
And, dammit, there are some times I am embarrassed with how we manage that responsibility.
And that role model thought assumes an even higher level of responsibility when you read this thought from the World Movement for Democracy:
“We believe that human beings aspire to freedom by their very nature, and that no single culture has a monopoly on democratic values. The tradition of democracy has been enriched by contributions from many cultures, and the development of democracy is open to peo
ple everywhere.”
So. Maybe the next time someone says “I have the freedom to say whatever I want” maybe they can stop, and think, and ponder whether it should really be said, or said that way, for someone out there in another country is listening, and listening closely, for they aspire and dream of having the same freedom.