I’ve been giving a lot of thought recently to the concept of freedom and personal liberty. As we approach the final parts of the 2016 US elections, it seems as relevant a conversation as it ever was. It seems like no matter which way you turn someone is trying to find a way of imposing their will and belief system on others.
The Christian opposes the marriage of a gay couple because it is a sin according to the Bible, even though the Bible is not meant to be a standard for those who do not follow its teachings. The Atheist wants to remove any mention of belief in god from the public sphere, take for example the effort to remove the motto “In God we Trust” from US currency; even though according to some polls less than 15% of the total population of the United States does not adhere to any particular religion and can be considered atheistic. The Attorney General of the United States wants to pursue legal action against people who do not agree with her opinion on climate change. Students at Universities across the country are protesting to have comedians banned, and even to have certain words banned from use on campus. There is an ongoing campaign against freedom of speech and freedom of expression on these campuses. Some students have gone as far as to say that freedom of speech should not be allowed if such speech is emotionally hurtful to another.
So today we have universities banning speakers over offensive jokes, celebrities complaining irrationally about whatever buzzword cause they feel like promoting on a particular day; for example calling a superhero movie poster sexist, because a female super hero is shown being attacked by the antagonist. Student movements on college campuses demanding that words like “crazy” be banned, saying that we should use less offensive verbiage like “wild” … that is of course until that word also becomes taboo and we are forced to trim our vocabulary once again.
There is such an emphasis to avoid offense; that ironically people are being called all kinds of horrible things in an effort to curb the use of offensive words. Terms with serious connotations and historical meaning such as racist, homophobe, and a number of derogatory terms I will not write here, are thrown around on a whim as if they were candies at a children’s party. The problem here is not about words, it’s about control, and it’s about forcing people into a certain belief system because that system is “right!”
The danger with this type of coercion and censorship is that when the time comes, who gets to decide what is censored, who gets the power to choose what’s right and wrong, and why stop just at censorship? Why not take the next step as Stalin did in the Soviet Union, or Hitler or Mao… The next step is the violent suppression of all who do not fit in the collective mold of how things should be, after all, they are horrible bigots, or climate change deniers, or insert whatever counter-culture concept you want here.
At the heart of almost every controversial social discussion we have today, you will find someone trying to force someone else to think or act a certain way. Someone trying to force their beliefs on others, and using the powerful force of the law to do it.
If you look up the word tyranny in the Merriam-Webster dictionary the first definition you will see is: “cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others” or a little further down “a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force”.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because we see it all too often these days. How can this happen in a nation literally founded on the idea of individual liberty? A nation founded by men who made statements like “Give me Liberty, or give me death!” and which has often been the example of what a free society should be.
Dr. Os Guinness (author and social critic) once said in an interview: “in a convulsion of the global era, the most precious thing is human dignity. What is it that expresses and protects human dignity? Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion… and the arena that enhances that is the civil public square.”
By “the civil public square” Dr. Guinness is referring to the ability of people from many backgrounds, in any community, with various beliefs and values, to come together and discuss issues; to debate ideas, and to let those ideas rise or fall on their merit. Sometimes the ideas one holds will triumph… sometimes they will fail to live up to scrutiny, but the ability to approach a controversial concept and allow it to be scrutinized is key for any diverse and strong society.
See, I think, in the end, we all want the freedom to live our lives how we see fit.
Left or Right, we each want to be free to do what’s best for ourselves and our families. Whether it’s the ability to defend our homes; or the freedom to love whomever we choose. The wish to worship within our chosen religion; or the freedom to walk away from it completely without fear of retribution. The freedom to grow our own food, fly our flag, to assemble in groups of like-minded individuals, and most of all the freedom to express our thoughts without censorship, or fear of legal recourse for having a “wrong” opinion.
If we keep heading down the path of collectivism, and of censorship towards anything that opposes the accepted thought, then will be continuing the path that was started by Hitler, Stalin and Mao. We will be just as guilty of stifling science and progress as the Catholic Church was during the time of Galileo… if not more so.
This is the importance of liberty for all; under the law, without exceptions.
Ayn Rand wrote that the “smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
Throughout history there has always been a struggle between Liberty and Tyranny. Tyranny hides behind many veils and takes on many forms, but will always show its true colors in the end. Whereas Liberty is sometimes dirty, it’s not as safe, there are dangers and it can be scary, but which would you choose for your life? When we decide to limit people’s freedoms, when we pull at the threads of the rights of the individual, we’ll soon find the entire tapestry unravels into a type of despotism.
I will leave you with this thought:
“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” – John Adams
* Arthur Cleroux is an INFJ and a bit of an idealist, with a logical and rational preference in his approach to politics and political issues. He considers himself slightly right of center when it comes to the political road map. He recognizes that there are nuances in every position and realize that there is no such thing as a perfect world, though we can still strive to make it a reality. He does, however, feel very strongly about the way the world is going these days, and how liberty is being replaced, more often than not, by a mandated party line that must be adhered to. He would like to help put a stop to that and be a part of setting up a world for his children where liberty is the basis of our thought process, and individuality and liberty are cherished rather than ostracized as outdated concepts.
This post was written by Arthur Cleroux.
The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.
Latest posts by Arthur Cleroux (see all)
- On Terrorism (Part 1) – What Are We Thinking - June 18, 2017
- What are we Thinking – Terror and Climate Change - June 4, 2017
- What are we Thinking – The Issue of the ‘White Male’ - May 21, 2017