Maybe Borders Aren’t Such a Bad Idea After All

Tags

border control, free speech, globalism, liberty, mass immigration

All political systems can be reduced to a common denominator. To what extent does the system promote liberty or totalitarianism? Names, labels and ideologies aside, liberty lies at one end of the spectrum and totalitarianism at the other.

Of course, the ideal is liberty. I shouldn’t have to remind anyone of that. But it increasingly appears that people are being coerced into embracing the unideal, promoting the collective “good” at the expense of the individual’s rights.

I’m a Christian. I like liberty. It ensures I possess the freedom to say what I want, worship as I please and be left alone to follow my own conscience.

I don’t like totalitarianism. It instructs me to keep my mouth shut, bow at the altar of political correctness and follow outside directives.

Today different words are used. But they amount to the same thing. Proponents of “globalism” parrot the collectivist mantra; supporters of “nationalism,” the libertarian.

Consider Brexit. David Cameron miscalculated. He didn’t realize the extent of public disgruntlement. A majority of the British were (apparently) tired of unelected EU bureaucrats making laws from them. They suddenly remembered that they were supposed to be living in a democracy. They shook off the lethargy of passive consent and betook themselves to the polls.

In a word, the British took the first step toward reclaiming their sovereignty. The sweet almost forgotten memories of liberty began wafting back.

Consider Trump. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, he represents a nationalistic sentiment gaining momentum in the US. The Founding Fathers said something like, “Let’s take care of our country and secure our future. Let’s build an agricultural and industrial base in America. We might even create some jobs in the process. Let’s be very careful about our foreign entanglements. In fact, let’s just adopt a non-interventionist policy altogether.” Sounds vaguely familiar in relation to some of today’s “nationalistic” political rhetoric.

A man in a white truck kills over 80 people in Nice, France. Though we were told not to make any assumptions, human nature dictated that we did. Now we know. It was a pre-planned, coordinated attack. ISIS claims the driver was one of their own. It was terrorism, no doubt. And all indications point toward Islamic extremism.

Europeans are starting to scratch their heads and ask if perhaps the immigration influx of 2015 wasn’t such a great idea. Maybe these hundreds of thousands of young men pouring across the borders weren’t all really “moderates” fleeing from Syria. Maybe when ISIS claimed that it would use Europe’s immigration policy to smuggle its operatives in, it was telling the truth.

Now the clamor rises for tighter border controls. Makes sense, right? But as unpopular as borders are today, they represent more than just geographical boundaries. They represent national sovereignty. They represent the country and cultures that reside within. They offer protection, both physically and ideologically. They are awfully nationalistic.  

Borders also protect liberty. Globalism insists that everyone conform to the same image. That image is dictated by whatever authoritarians are perched on top.  “No borders” sounds great. Except it doesn’t lead to world-wide peace. It leads to global destabilization.

Obama said in a speech recently that the answer to chronic violence is “institutions that promote the common humanity.”  This is a convoluted way of saying globalism. We don’t celebrate cultural and ethnic diversity by forcing everyone to conform to some international standard. For one, it’s not going to work—at least not peacefully. So the solution to further unrest will be further globalization.

If we all want to experience the collective good we must also all suffer the consequences of collective wrongs. Terrorism suddenly becomes my fault because I question immigration policies and hurt somebody’s feelings.

Totalitarians might call themselves technocrats, corporatists, presidents or prime ministers. Regardless of the word game, cultural distinctions and ethnic diversity stand in their way. National sovereignty is anathema.

There was a time when people scoffed at the whole idea global governance. It might be an idea floated by UN member countries, but what nation would ever willingly give up its sovereignty? Yet we now see it unfolding before our eyes.

First compromise national borders. Then propagate the idea that anyone who has a problem with this is a racist. After the destabilizing effects of mass immigrant influx comes to fruition, offer the “logical” solution: the supposed security and stability of global government.

Geo-politics are indicative of underlying spiritual realities. Globalism is coming. The Bible paints it as an inevitable picture of the future. It will completely crush the rights of the individual, allowing “freedom” only to those who conform to its preordained standards. But while we will still possess relatively free societies, let’s stand up for the liberty they claim to represent, at least in the West.

For me, this means I must continue to write and speak what I believe. I must take advantage of the freedom I possess. There is a day quickly approaching, I have no doubt, when my Christian brothers and sisters will be labeled extremists in an attempt to silence us. I will still write and speak then, but perhaps at much greater consequence.

The encouraging fact in the midst of it all is that God is with His people. Don’t know what this means? Take a few moments to read the best news. You too can be ready…

Advertisements

A Small Step for Freedom

Tags

church and state, free speech, Pastor James McConnell, political correctness, tyranny

In my first post of the new year I’m pleased to write about a positive development. Irish evangelical pastor James McConnell was found not guilty. This is a tiny ray of hope in the encroaching darkness of religious censorship.

It’s tragic that charges were brought against McConnell in the first place. Thankfully, the judge had enough sense to not overstep the bounds of his legal jurisdiction, correctly stating, “The courts need to be very careful not to criticise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances.”

Well said, judge. It is not the job of the courts “to censor offensive utterances.” If it were, then speech would simply be judged in the court of public opinion. The problem with Mr. Public Opinion is that he is used by those in authority positions to condemn what they personally find offensive. That’s today’s tyranny.

Today’s tyranny doesn’t don military uniforms. Instead, it parades around in pin-stripe suits.

Today’s tyranny doesn’t pound a podium in the middle of a packed stadium. Instead, It raves and rants about microaggressions and reparations in ivy-league classrooms.

Today’s tyranny doesn’t scream and yell, spittle flying. Instead, it talks in measured and soothing tones while sneering at anger as an inappropriate reaction to the loss of liberty.

Today’s tyranny doesn’t have its detractors disappeared into the night. Instead, it openly, and with a straight face, has pastors prosecuted for “offensive” sermons.

Today’s tyranny doesn’t refer to the perpetrators of religiously-motivated violence as Islamic terrorists. Instead, it demonizes peaceful, evangelical pastors as criminals because they dare to speak their minds.

Today’s tyranny doesn’t take over newspapers and raid its opposition. Instead, it buys off its competition and ridicules “fringe” media.

Today’s tyranny doesn’t blame societal problems on a culture of violence and death. Instead, it projects the illusion that inanimate objects called guns are responsible.

Today’s tyranny is the most dangerous yet to be seen because it wears the guise of political correctness. Sometimes it even boasts a bushy beard, horn-rimmed glasses and talks with a lisp. It scoffs at those who disagree as uneducated and backward. It promotes freedom of speech for itself alone.

Obviously no one else is worthy to have an opinion.

SO, it’s refreshing to see than in at least in one courtroom in Northern Ireland a judge refused to violate a man’s right to express a personal belief. It’s a small victory for freedom and a not so insignificant chink in the shiny armor of tyranny.

May 2016 see more of the same!

 

The Pulpit is a Free Speech Zone

Tags

church and state, free speech, Magna Carta

The trial for the evangelical Irish pastor James McConnell is gaining international attention, and well it should be. He is charged with making “grossly offensive” comments from his pulpit, statements that went out as a broadcast over the internet. Hence, the charge specifically reads, “improper use of a public electronic communications network.”

This begs the question, what were these comments that were so offensive they call this man to be brought up on criminal charges? It’s no surprise in our current political climate that the comments in question have to do with Islam. McConnell referred to the religion as “satanic” and “heathen.”

I’m not going to opine on the Muslim religion here. I am going to rant about freedom of speech. If it’s not protected in the pulpit, it’s not protected anywhere.

I’m not sure if Northern Ireland has a First Amendment, per say. But they are a part of the United Kingdom, whose political heritage claims the Magna Carta, John Locke and the balancing power of Parliament. We’re talking about the soil upon which the notion of individual liberty budded. It is in McConnell’s natural right as human being within a supposedly democratic and free society to preach what he desires from the pulpit.

I can see McConnell not being able to make such comments in Saudi Arabia without legal (and perhaps lethal) repercussions. But for him not to be able to say what he said in Northern Ireland is a slap in the face to freedom. Shame on the government of Northern Ireland.

Shame on them because freedom of speech covers offensive speech. After all, anyone’s opinion will inevitably offend someone. To prohibit “offensive” speech is to ban talking all together.

But of course, banning all speech is not the intent. Banning certain kinds of speech made by certain individuals is. McConnell’s evangelical opinions are condemned. But what about the imams in Northern Ireland who preach that Christianity is “satanic” and that western civilization is the “Great Satan”? Maybe I missed the simultaneous trials going on targeting Muslim clerics who’ve made “offensive” statements against Christianity. 

This is nothing less than selective enforcement. Only particular religions and groups enjoy free speech. Surprise, surprise.

The spin placed upon this case by the courts is this: because the statements went out over the internet, they are liable for prosecution. I thought speech was still free on the internet. I guess not.

I’m a Christian. I’m an evangelical. I often preach from a pulpit. And I say what I feel God lays upon my heart. If I were to heed the social critics, I would cower in fear. I would apologize for what I believe. I would put duct tape over my mouth and grovel at the feet of political correctness.

But I’m not going to do any of that.

I wrote The Hidden Altar back in 2009 (but didn’t publish it until 2012). One of the main characters is an American pastor who is charged under anti-terrorism laws for a comment he inadvertently makes from the pulpit. I’ve had people that read the novel tell me they really enjoyed the story, but the scenario seemed unrealistic.  

When I read an article like this, it only confirms to me that in fact The Hidden Altar’s story-line is not fantastical. We’re seeing it happen right now.

At risk of getting preachy here, I have to ask. Where do you stand on this issue? Will you tolerate the selective persecution of free speech? Will you remain silent? Today it’s some unknown Irish pastor. Tomorrow it will be an American pastor. Soon enough, it will be you.

   

I Weep For Huck Finn

Tags

free speech, Huckleberry Finn, safe space

I liked Huckleberry Finn. It’s been a while since I’ve read it. I should probably read it again to see what I think about it these days. Regardless, I am considering buying a few extra copies and handing them out. Talk of book banning always motivates me to promote seditious material.

Of course, striking ole’ Huck from a school reading list is nothing new. It’s also merely symptomatic of much, much bigger problems. All I can picture is bonfires surrounded by masses of college-attendees, gleefully tossing “offensive” materials into the flames as they wear malicious smiles and smugly think themselves progressive. How terrifying. (insert shudder here)

According to this article, “…a Montgomery County school removed Huckleberry Finn from its curriculum after a group of students said the book made them feel uncomfortable.”

So feelings have really become the new standard by which we decide what can be read and what can’t. I guess that means I can run around demanding that anything that makes me “uncomfortable” must be struck from society. Even if I could do something so ludicrous, I wouldn’t.

The annoying thing about free speech is that it includes all speech—even the speech you or I don’t like. The satisfying thing about free speech is that Mark Twain is allowed to write what he wants and I’m allowed to read it.

Guess what. Some white people in nineteenth-century America used the N-word.

Shocker, I know.

Guess what else. Part of learning who we are and where we’ve come from is reading books that were written in time periods when people spoke and acted in ways that wouldn’t be socially acceptable today.

One way to ensure that a student doesn’t receive an education is to filter the information they receive so they never learn to think for themselves. Another way is just to ignore the parts of history and literature that they don’t like.

I think the scariest statement in this article is, “We have all come to the conclusion that the community costs of reading this book in 11th grade outweigh the literary benefits.”

Community costs? Where did that come from? Right out of Mao’s Little Red Book?

All I can say is look out when classic literature begins to be sacrificed for community “feelings.” I can’t even believe that I’m having to comment on it. Suddenly it’s normal in a supposedly free society to ban a book because someone might get their feelings hurt. Truth be told, the very idea of catering to community costs offends me. 

Liberty–based societies emphasize the freedom of the individual. Collectivist societies emphasize the good of the community. In the latter some bureaucrat gets to decide what is best for everyone and enforces that idea via state directive. You and I don’t get to choose what we think is best. It is decided for us.

I’m glad I took the time to read it Huckleberry Finn. You may disagree that my time was well spent. That’s fine. But please, Mr. Principal (or whoever else), don’t pretend that you decree the standard for making judgments on behalf of the community.

I don’t have a right not to be offended. And I accept that. In this real world in which we live, contrary to the group-think city-states that colleges and high schools have become, there is no “safe space” from offense. The First Amendment is politically the safest space for us all.

What Terrorism is NOT

Tags

Confederate flag, First Amendment, free speech, freedom of religion, terrorism

Sometimes there is a news story so outrageous that I can’t help but sound off about it. The most recent of these concerns the indictment of fifteen people in Georgia on charges of terrorism. What did they do? When I hear of a charge that severe, a charge that carries up to twenty years if convicted, I think of certain activities that are horrendous, unspeakable, activities that take lives or attempt to do so.

I think about all of those horrific images we associate with terrorism: explosions, blood, smoke and carnage. I think about the Middle East and northern Africa, the IRA and Al-Qaeda. I think about extremists and ideologies, threats and coercions. I think about all of these things because they are traditionally synonymous with terrorism.

Terrorism is an attempt by its perpetrator to instill terror into its victims. As we all know all too well, there are those who will stop at nothing to do so.

What I do not think about when I hear the word terrorism is waving a confederate flag and getting into an altercation as a result. But these are apparently now activities that will get one brought up on charges of terrorism. This deeply concerns me. And for anyone who values liberty, it should concern you too.  

Before I go any further let me make clear that I do not fly a confederate flag. I have no interest whatsoever in doing so. That said, I do think the history of the confederate flag is much more complex than the simple and naive perception that it represents racism and nothing else. However, the issue at hand has nothing to do with the confederate flag. It has everything to do with the First Amendment.

The details of the story are still in question. The group, Respect the Flag, claims they were swarmed by African-american party-goers who threw rocks and threatened them with weapons. The party-goers claimed that the flag-flyers parked nearby and began making threats and yelling racial slurs.

Okay. Let’s see here. If there were only insults hurled from either side, that is not terrorism. If there were actual threats made, that is still not terrorism. Even if there was physical abuse, that is not terrorism. The latter is called assault and charges should be made accordingly.

The members of the flag-flyers were accused of “criminal gang activity” and charged with making “terroristic threats” against the party-goers. By that standard I guess we can expect people involved in inner-city gang violence to be arrested and charged with terrorism in the future? Probably not.

The definition of terrorism is: the use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. As with any law we have to look at its intent, not search for ways to stretch and distort said law to encompass any action or activity that might conceivably be twisted to fit the definition. If all of a sudden flying a confederate flag is terrorism, where does it stop? What other flags or symbols or emblems will be banned? And do we then make “racist” comments an act of terrorism?

The First Amendment protects all speech, even the speech you or I may not like. Unless the prosecutor in this upcoming case can prove that the intent of the Respect the Flag members in question was to promote a political ideology through violent means, it is not terrorism. Even then, we have to be extremely careful in distinguishing between run-of-the-mill criminal threats versus actual terrorism. The line is not thin. It is dangerous to make it so.

When people are afraid to express their opinion because of possible reprisals, the First Amendment is in jeopardy. You must protect the rights of everyone to express their views or you will eventually lose your right to speak freely. Am I being too severe in my appraisal? No, because the threat to individual liberty historically always starts small. Now I don’t consider this recent episode a “small” matter, but I am aware that others might feel the severe charges are appropriate.

In larger context, consider the parallel rights along with speech contained in the First Amendment: religious liberty and freedom of the press. As a conservative, evangelical Christian I am all too aware that beliefs I hold dearly and proclaim openly are certainly “offensive” to some people. If I don’t defend the rights of someone to wave a particular flag and express a particular opinion (even when I do not agree), then I will eventually find statements I make also forbidden. I might be called “hateful” because something in a sermon I preach is unpalatable to a certain group of people. Suddenly, a charge of terrorism is bandied about because some special interest group or federal judge is offended.

Too far fetched? Not at all. Both Hitler and Stalin used “anti-terrorism” laws to arrest their political enemies and to suppress freedom of speech, religion and the press. This could never happen in America? Look around. Maybe it already is…

  

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.