Free Speech Cannot Have Limits (But You’re Free to Disagree)

Tags

Charlie Hebdo, democratic values, free speech, freedom, hate speech, missionary, natural rights, Paris, Pope, Roman Catholicism, tyranny, Voltaire

Are their limits to free speech? The pope seems to think so. According to his recent comments in regards to the Charlie Hebdo incident in Paris, he clarified what he meant by these limits: “You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

I’m always concerned when I hear comments made by prominent world voices about the need to restrict free speech. I’m especially concerned when it comes from someone like the pope who of all people, as a religious leader, should understand the value of safe-guarding this most fundamental of natural rights.

First of all, who gets to define what are provoking or insulting statements? If I criticize, let’s say, a point of doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, should that be illegal? I personally have strong religious and political opinions (so does the pope for that matter). Of course there are those who disagree with me. They might even criticize or insult me. But that’s fine. If I can’t take a proverbial blow or two, that’s my problem.

I have to allow others to say or write things I don’t endorse or agree with so that I too can continue to say and write whatever I desire. This is common sense. I don’t even understand wanting to be in a position where I can dictate to someone else what they can and can’t say. That waxes a bit too on the tyrannical side for me.

As a missionary I bear a message that I feel is relevant and proclaim it to those who I feel need to hear it. Since my conscience outweighs considerations of man’s laws, I would continue to do this whether it was “legal” or not. I’m thankful for a heritage of western democratic ideals that have thus far given me the legal right to exercise free speech. But the right to say what I want to say is a right no one can take from me…or you.

A subtler argument for limiting free speech is the matter of a statement being labeled “hate speech.” Again, who gets to define what is hateful? There are mean, nasty, and downright evil-spirited folks out there. I hear and read comments that turn my stomach by their implications. I wish people wouldn’t say certain things and I cringe at the hate that drips off of the words and resides in the hearts of those who say them. But that doesn’t mean I should make it my mission to keep them from saying it.

I don’t have to listen or agree. I can even criticize and rebuke. But should I be able to shut down someone’s ability to speak their mind? I don’t think so. Not unless, that is, I’m willing to be be silenced as well.

Are their limits to free speech? I would argue no. When it comes to inciting violence or criminal activity, that no longer falls under the purview of what I consider free speech. According to the generally accepted theory of natural rights, my freedom ends when it infringes upon another’s freedom. A call for violence obviously has the potential to hinder another’s right to live and express his freedom.

The irony here is that the pope also made tongue-in-cheek comments about punching someone if they insulted his mother. He, of course, then quickly clarified that he doesn’t endorse the violence that occurred in Paris. But let me get this straight. He wants to limit my free speech, but at the same time he can “joke” about assaulting someone for theirs?

This whole issue is not about the pope. His comments are simply indicative of a disturbing global trend toward limiting the individual’s right to free speech. Once that ball starts rolling, it can go to a bad place quickly. And historically it’s a very difficult precedent to reverse. So let’s not go there! Instead, let’s continue to say what we think, proclaim what we believe, and graciously allow others to do the same.

Advertisements

Prepping the Mind

Tags

blacksmithing, classics, economic collapse, Francis Bacon, homesteading, language-learning, memorization, prepping, renaissance man, self-education, self-sufficiency, solar flare, survival, university

With the increasing realization that we all need to be prepared for uncertainties in these uncertain times, it seems the concept of “prepping” has come into its own. This is an encouraging development. It’s unfortunate that being prepared for emergency situations or hard times ever fell out of favor, or at the very least was ignored. The old-timers had their own word for prepping. They called it horse-sense. Being prepared for the future for them was simply a fact of life.

It shouldn’t be a revelation that we are not guaranteed tomorrow will be just as easy as today. Whoever has eyes to see the instability of the current global economic situation will acknowledge this. Whoever has given up even looking for a job, or is holding down two or three and still not making ends meet has already begun to taste the bitterness of the economic reality.

What happened? I think in the West what happened (in part) was that we got really comfortable and astonishingly ignorant. We took for granted that we’ll always have power, water and a nearby grocery store stocked with an unimaginable variety of foods. We forgot that eggs come from chickens and that a hamburger is the result of someone somewhere having slaughtered a cow. We watch reality shows about swash-buckling mountain men while sitting on our couches and eating foods that make us fat and give us cancer. And all the while something in the back of our minds whispers that knowing how to work with one’s hands and survive is how it’s supposed to be.

These symptoms of apathy have become so apparent that many people have noticed and begun prepping. There are web-sites galore with instructions and advice—and a lot of the information is certainly worth reading. Therefore, I’m not going to post one more article about how to be physically prepared. Instead I want to look at another facet of prepping. I want to look at prepping the mind.

Much of the prepping that we already do involves thinking through possible scenarios and how to best meet them should they arise. In fact, being mentally prepared is as important—and I would venture to say even more so—than the physical aspect. A person can have all the physical preparations in place for a multitude of contingencies but when the moment arises to implement his plans, panic or muddled-thinking can keep him from properly executing them.

And what about after—after we’ve eaten the storable food, harvested the garden, and used up the medical supplies? When the immediate emergency has passed and the situation has somewhat stabilized, we start looking toward the future. Owning a piece of land and beginning to work it now, in my opinion, is the best physical preparation that one can make. But that too obviously requires mental preparation to complement the physical.

Even if you are not in a position financially to purchase land or gather many supplies, there are things you can do. And these things are beneficial whether the world as we know it suddenly changes for the worse or whether we continue on our merry way for years to come.

The first of these mental preparations is to increase your stock of useful knowledge. The over-baked quote attributed to Francis Bacon, “knowledge is power,” still holds true. Those who possess useful knowledge not only survive, but thrive. The complementary word here is useful. So much of what is taught in the educational system, particularly in higher-education, is specialized knowledge. It’s great for when you’re in a setting that calls for it, but those settings are limited and are usually very dependent on society functioning normally.

We get the word “university” from two words that mean “unity” and “diversity,” or the “whole combined into one.” The original function of the university setting was to provide a unified understanding of all the diverse fields of knowledge. These traditionally included science, math, philosophy, history, and economics among others. The “renaissance man” was someone who studied widely across many fields of academic discipline. He not only possessed useful knowledge, but was able to make necessary connections between the disciplines in order to secure a deeper understanding of the world around him.

How does one obtain such an education today? Read books! Crazy, I know. But I’m not talking about a steady diet of emotion-driven, time-killing drivel, but books that add to your knowledge, and ultimately increase wisdom.

There is a book for anything and everything out there. Start reading where your interests lie. Learn to process what you read and stick it somewhere in your mind where it will stay until you need it. Take up the classics, not only fiction, but in mathematics and the sciences. Educate yourself the way people use to. Read!

You don’t have to be wealthy to read. There is still a library or two around…at least for the time being. And, I’ve found many of the best books in my collection at thrift stores and used-book stores—even garage sales. Keep your eyes peeled. Knowledge is something that no one can take from you.

Needing knowledge is kind of obvious, I know (ha, ha). However, we tend to let ourselves get so easily distracted and end up wasting precious moments of time that we’ll never have again. Let’s redeem them!

Secondly—and this is closely related to the first—be mentally prepared by acquiring useful skills. It’s a smart practice to scour flea markets and antique stores for old (that is, durable) tools. The problem is a tool is useless if you don’t know how to use or maintain it.

Your grandfather’s old hand saw is worth keeping. All you need is arm-power to work it. But what happens when it gets dull (or maybe it already is)? Do you know how to sharpen it? The time to learn is now.

Like knowledge, skills are things that no one can take from you. Unlike stuff, you can’t have too many skills. And as an added bonus, they travel light. I’m thankful for the upbringing I had that introduced me to everything from yard work to carpentry to laying brick. I look around and lament for this present generation of video-game heads, some of whom have literally never even had to take the garbage out. But I also look at my father and grandfather’s generation and realize how many more useful skills they possessed than I do.

I’ve got a lot of catching up to do. And I know there’s no time like the present to start.

Maybe you’ve already networked with other homesteaders or preppers in your area. You’ve begun developing a community, planted a common garden together or started a local co-op. What about discussing individual skill-sets? If you know your neighbor can wire a 12-volt solar system (and is a friendly guy), instead of spending too much time on that subject, try to pick up something no one else around you can do. Blacksmithing is a good example of a dying art. Before mass-produced factory goods, the local blacksmith made just about everything for the community that wasn’t wooden.

I learned to shoe horses years ago from friends in an old-fashioned Mennonite settlement. Since I currently don’t own any horses, I haven’t gotten to put this ability into practice recently. Yet even though I’m rusty, the skill is there. And when I need it, Lord-willing I’ll be able to implement it again.

The third area of prepping the mind factors in to both obtaining knowledge and acquiring skills. It is honing your memory. It’s a good practice to jot down what you’re learning from your reading, but being able to memorize it is even better.

Aside from reading and doing, many things I’ve learned I’ve simply gleaned from conversations. Sometimes I’ll suddenly have at my disposal a needed fact or a bit of useful information and wonder where it came from. Later, it will dawn on me that so-and-so mentioned that when I saw him downtown back in April. I didn’t necessarily mean to lock it in my mind, but there it held fast nevertheless.

Another good exercise for the ole’ memory is language acquisition. Languages are incredibly useful things to know, and learning them requires memorization—at least until the language becomes actual knowledge. Learning another language also helps you to think more clearly, make sharper mental connections and put to regular use the cob-web infested corners of the brain. And beyond all of this, you’ll be able to communicate with a whole bunch of folks you couldn’t before!

With useful knowledge, skills and a well-developed memory we’re a long way toward being prepared for whatever life throws in our direction. Even if a catastrophic economic collapse, mass civil unrest or the solar-flare of the century never occurs, having a prepared mind will always be there to serve you in a time of need.

When Government Becomes God

Tags

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Atheism, Biblical Christianity, centralization, church and state, clergy response team, Communism, concentration camp, corruption, Deism, dictator, Empire, justice, personal freedom, Pope, power-grab, religion, Roman Catholicism, Romans 13, Scripture

Just as the individual inevitably entertains some viewpoint on the matter of religion, so will government. Historically, governments fall within one of three categories in their approach to religion: they endorse the concept of God, deny the concept of God or make government itself God. I’m not specifying who God is at this point. I’m simply pointing out that religion, even if it’s a denial of it, will necessarily play a role in the state.

Examples of the first of these approaches are legion. The vast majority of governments over the millennia have adopted a god or gods to whom they’ve directed society’s worship. In ancient religions the priest class was typically the ruling class, or exercised at least as much authority as the elite. This often resulted in the religious/political leaders actually assuming worship as incarnate or representative gods themselves. Hence we see a combination of government both endorsing the concept of God as well as making itself God.

The Roman Catholic system, particularly as expressed in European society of the Middle Ages, is a specific example of state-endorsed religion. Kings allowed the Pope’s religion to be disseminated in their domains. In return, the Pope, as God’s so-called representative, gave his blessing to the king and his subjects. Everyone living within the Pope’s domain was a “Christian.” And the church used the state’s authority to enforce its viewpoint, even on pain of death.

Examples of governments flat-out denying God are much fewer and tend to be found in more recent history. Communist systems are officially atheistic in their approach to the religious question. Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and China from Mao Tse-tung’s reign up until the present, are representative of this approach. Basically, the state becomes God when the state’s religion is atheism.

America’s approach to religion was unique. Built on a political foundation laid by the British, the founders experimented with the concept of government not endorsing any specific religion and instead allowing its people to freely exercise their choice thereof. Though there were some who were Christians in the biblical sense, many of America’s original framers were Deists. But because such an open and largely unrestricted political policy toward religion allowed for the flourishing of Christianity, America is traditionally labeled a “Christian” nation.

Unfortunately, the American state has followed the same historical path as other nations, maybe just a little bit slower. All governments tend toward centralization. All governments seek more and more power. It’s in their nature. Hence, when there is no check on them, the end result is always some form of self-deification. This may not be as blatant as the emperor demanding incense be burned to him or some ridiculous dictator insisting he makes the sun come up, but it will manifest, even if subtly. When it comes down to it, the unregulated state always covets ultimate control. And if we unquestioningly bow to its demands, then logic dictates that the state has become our God.

But alas, people will worship something, whether it is God, gods or the State. We were created to do so. Where does this put the Christian who worships God and simultaneously lives under government? Are the two compatible? Yes. And probably the clearest passage to confirm this is Romans 13:1-7: “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God…for it [the government] is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”

The problem is these verses have been parroted by everyone from the popes to Adolph Hitler to Mao Tse-tung to the modern evangelical pastor.

Here’s how I see the passage in question. The “governing authorities” are states. No type of government is specified, so all forms fall under this umbrella. God, we are clearly told, is the author of all authority. He “establishes” governments. So the question is: does Romans 13 teach that God endorses everything that governments do?

I think the answer is obvious. Of course He doesn’t. A just and loving God didn’t endorse Nazi concentration camps, Pol Pot’s killing fields or Stalin’s gulags. It can be rightly said that God allowed these things to happen, for He obviously does allow evil to exist in the world. But taking it any further than that (“what God allows is what God wills”) becomes a sticky theological argument and wading into the monergism versus synergism debate is out of the scope of the present article.

So if we can agree that God establishes governments but doesn’t endorse everything that governments do, then we can come to another obvious conclusion. What God doesn’t endorse, the Christian cannot endorse either. The Christian is in subjection to government so far as government is in subjection to God—or at least, to the moral laws of God that are written on the heart of every man.

And this is precisely what Romans 13 verse 4 tells us. The primary role of the state is to punish evildoers. That is, God has ordained governments to be the earthly arbitrators of justice. Ideally the man who does good has nothing to fear. However, the evildoer need not be surprised when he is punished for his deeds.

Now we come (very quickly, I’ll admit) to the crux of the matter. What happens if the state begins to do the opposite of what God has ordained it to do? Or to put it another way, what if the state punishes good and rewards evil? This is exactly what happens when governments become corrupt and begin to rot from within. When this occurs, the Christian must then draw lines. He has no choice if he is to remain faithful to God’s Word. To blindly follow government is to make the state God. And it is irresponsible, if not downright dangerous, for a pastor to teach his congregants the government must be obeyed all the time, under every circumstance.

The only thing that Christians are called to obey at all times under all circumstances is the Scriptures. This is why totalitarian regimes traditionally seek to outlaw the Bible. They hate the fact that a group of people in society hold to a standard of behavior that takes precedent over everything else—even state edicts. The Christian measures the state according to God’s Word. And an evil regime cannot abide this practice.

The fact is Bible-believers are statistically among the most law-abiding citizens of society. No government should fear biblical expressions of Christianity. God-fearing men and women are the salt of the earth: they help to preserve the crucial moral ingredient in society and hold the state to account for its decisions and actions.

But it’s not only Christians that out-of-control governments persecute. Anyone that stands up for conscience’s sake becomes a target. Anyone who speaks out against corruption and injustice is singled-out as a troublemaker—or these days maybe even a terrorist. The secret police round up the artists, musicians, writers and whistleblowers right along with the Christians. We all end up in the same camp, suffering the same fate.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn perceived from personal experience, “To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth, you must sit in jail.” Solzhenitsyn sat languishing in communist prisons for many years lamenting that he and others didn’t speak up sooner against the evils of the system.

My point is we are all in this together. We all live our lives under government. And we all have a responsibility to keep the state in check for the sake of conscience, personal freedom and for the generations that will follow us. Christians too often have hidden behind a misinterpretation of Romans 13, refusing to point out wickedness in high places and thereby granting governments immunity to do as they please. We’ve tended to cower, shut our mouths and do what we’re told. This never works out well. We need to stand for truth now so we don’t have sit in jail for truth in the future. By then it’s a bit too late.