In Defense of Expression

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.  Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

            Louis B. Brandeis, 1928

When the Anti-Federalists grudgingly accepted the U.S. Constitution in 1789, they did so with the caveat that certain liberties be included in the document.  These would be liberties that were not susceptible to the whims of the government or other forces.  One of those liberties was the freedom of speech.  I’ve written often about the subject, both its importance and its limitation.  It is a passion of mine and one that is increasingly under attack.  It is, at present, our most endangered right.

In 1644, writer John Milton addressed the Parliament to oppose a bill that would heavily restrict what the country’s authors could and could not write about.  The speech, detailed in Milton’s Areopagitica, is considered one of the finest defense of expression.  It is a damning account of the writer’s belief that any “standardization” placed on writers could create consensus and intellectual laziness because faith and knowledge will not have the opportunity to “exercise itself.”  What Milton is talking about is that any limit to expression, be it written or oral, is a two-way bondage.  On one hand, it prevents from one the chance to express themselves but, on the other hand, it prevents the majority the chance to strengthen their own position by listening to others.  Knowledge cannot be improved upon unless it is challenged and forced to defend itself.

The Founding Fathers understood the importance of the freedom of speech, given its prominence within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Economist and philosopher Rosa Luxemburg referred to such a freedom as the right of the dissenters.  Freedom of speech only for the loudest or the most powerful is no freedom at all but a tyranny.  People who exist in such bubbles are at risk, as Christopher Hitchens once said, of taking “refuge in the false security of consensus.”  Individuals who only listen to like minds, who only watch like presentation of news or information, who refuse to hear or attempt to shout down any contrary point of view are ultimately dooming themselves. 

Such people are being witnessed throughout our country, on campuses from Yale to the University of Missouri to many others.  The situation at Yale University has been most publicized because of a viral video showing one out of control student yelling and cursing at a university administrator who had sent an email to consider others before deciding on a Halloween costume.  To some students, it was not enough to “encourage” others but to demand that no one wear a costume that could potentially offend someone or violate someone’s “safe space.” 

When you hear stories about this, it is enough to shake one’s head.  What many of these students are going on about when talking about “safe spaces” and the like is a demand to go through life un-offended.  In their young lives, they have either never been told or have chosen to forget completely the lesson about other ideas or words, particularly if they don’t like them.  What is offense taken?  In my twenty years as a teacher, as a former Marine, as a Jew, as a guy of size, I’ve heard many things in my life that would be deemed offensive.  However, I learned quite early that it does not matter what is said.  Unless it is true, what do I care?  It is not surprising that many have characterized these “crybullies” (not my word) as entitled and spoiled. 

A person should have the right to wear whatever they want as a costume or in an arena of ideas, be able to say what they would like.  Does such a right protect one from criticism or counter-ideas?  Unequivocally, the answer is no.  However, to stage protests that prevent the free expression of ideas is a dangerous trend.  Such rights have emboldened oppressed people for centuries in this country.  As many of these protesters are people of various races, it is even more perplexing because a commitment to freedom of expression has allowed one civil rights’ movement after another to be born, prosper and ultimately, succeed in this country.

I have strong opinions about freedom of speech.  There are limits however, outside of those very few exceptions, the right to express oneself in either offensive or banal terms is unassailable.  The Constitution says that the government was created to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.”  Secure, not bestow or create but secure.  That means the rights pre-date the government.  These are rights with which we are born and cannot be taken from us by government.  Let’s hope mob rule does not do the job.  

In Search for Spirituality

I was born to a Jewish father and a Christian mother.  I’m the child of two faiths, two cultures.  Growing up Christian, I remember moments of crisis.  I remember as a small child questioning the notion of God and being quite upset about it.  My father said my fears and angst were a sign of my faith – without it, my questions would not bother me.  In short, it is appropriate to question.  Today, I question again. 

I’m a Christian but I find no comfort in the faith, no spirituality.  Going to church today is to be subjected to a cacophony of noise.  There is no silence or time for reflection and contemplation.  Most churches are saddled with bands and speakers, ministers who are over-demonstrative and emotional, standing amidst screens with rolling graphics and words.  Through the din, it is impossible to connect with God.  It is likely churches have never been this way (it is a “service” after all) but certainly, the capacity for spirituality and connection has grown dimmer in recent decades.  In the noise, there is also desperation as the faith seeks to find members from an increasingly distracted generation.  

It has been said and practiced by many, across cultures and faiths, that reflection and quiet contemplation leads to strength.  The more one studies and the more one reflects, the stronger one grows.  In this practice, there is an activism toward empowerment.  However, some of today’s Christians seem to have gone in a different direction.  Many churches do not encourage the bringing of the Bible – the written explanation of the faith.  Some Christians sing overly emotive songs and look pleadingly to the heavens, in some cases with tears in their eyes and hands in the air.  Adherents to this practice might call this a sort of spirituality but it is only a passive attempt to search for it.  In doing so, I’ve always looked upon this as weak.

In my study, I see something strong in my faith, something empowering.  However, the way some practices are done seem to truncate that trait.  I’ve wondered what a church service would look like were we able to actively and spiritually approach our faith.  I’ve imagined a church with two rooms.  One room is for quiet prayer and meditation.  Buddhists say that only this can strengthen and correct the mind.  The other room is for reading and studying, discussion and debate.  In one room, one actively strengthens their faith through a pursuit of connectedness.  In the other room, it is done through a pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.  Unrealistically, it would do away with the “service” as we know it today.

The problem for me is that my type of church doesn't exist.  Historically, Christians have never done this.  Perhaps, my troubles are only my own but I don’t think so.  I would love to feel comfortable in a church however, in recent decades, the outside world and the things from which the church is to help us find solace now rests within the walls.  It says in Romans, Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.  Yet, I cannot find a church that has not been unalterably transformed by the world around them and the so-called necessities of reaching modern audiences.  Instead of showing these Christians the way to connect with God, these churches have conformed to the demands of how the congregants want to worship.  Sadly, it is not worship at all, certainly nothing with spirituality in accompaniment. 

Perhaps, I’m destined to seek my own path.  I don’t mind that and often, I prefer it.  However, it would also be nice to find those of similar disposition.