Freedom to or freedom from
It is that time of the year again. High schools and colleges are holding graduation ceremonies. I am well aware that some students graduate in December, but this seems to be the time of the year when many notable people are invited to speak to graduating seniors. I am not surprised when publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, publish articles about free speech. Just this morning, May 13, 2016 the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “Why Free Speech matters on Campus” by Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch. (page A13).
Most of us have been acutely aware of the seeming intolerance exhibited by opposing sides in the current presidential campaign in the United States. I am, of course, also aware that intolerance for what others say or do is fueling violent behavior in many places around the globe. All too often the God of one’s understanding is blamed or credited for the intolerant views. We humans often seem convinced that the God of our understanding needs us to protect His, Her or its reputation or place in the hierarchy of this universe.
So often as I age (actually it has been happening since I was quite young even by the standards of youthful ageists) I am unsure of the authorship of certain thoughts or questions. For example, when I was reading about free speech this morning, the questions of freedom from or freedom to rushed to the forefront of my mind. Perhaps I first heard these questions from Professor Charles West at Princeton Theological seminary, Water Kaufman at Princeton University or one of my esteemed philosophy professors at the University of Maryland. Perhaps it was first uttered to me by my Grandmother Pickett, my Aunt Pleasie, or my Uncle Harold. This thought may have been first provoked by my observance of the bullies I encountered as a young child. I have no idea. Regardless, it seems to me that the questions of freedom to and freedom from are important questions which we need to explore with our children beginning at a very early age.
If one asks the question, freedom to, one might consider:
Obviously one can continues to list such questions until one has filled up many pages. On the other hand, one could think in terms of freedom from and ask:
I do not personally like behavior which discounts, dismisses, is intentionally hurtful, controlling or destructive towards others. I do not think that finances, physical strength, or intellectual strength should be used to restrict the ability of others to live.
I am very uncomfortable with negative name calling or any form of violence – verbal, psychological (sometimes too vague) or physical. On the other hand, I do not want laws which restrict the right of political candidates to say what they think even if what they are saying is hurtful to me or others. Yet, if their language is likely to cause grave offense to others then, at the very least, it is distasteful and not to be encouraged.
I would certainly defend “the right’ of others to publish drawings or words which are offensive to certain groups. For example, I would defend “the right’ of Charlie Hebdo to have published controversial cartoons what depicted the Prophet Muhammed and lampooned Islamic radicals. At the same time, I think asking if he had the right begs the larger question. Why would one deliberately do something to offend another individuals or group of individuals? I would also ask, “Why posit a God whom one believes one has to violently defend? Why conceptualize a God for whom one has to kill others? Islamic radicals are not the first to do this. Certainly the history of Christianity is rife with such examples. To this day, many Christians feel very strongly about their “duty” to defend their right to insure that others do not engage in behavior which they believe the God of their understanding finds offensive.
Clearly one has the “right” to engage in behavior which is labeled as free speech. On the other hand, if the exercise of our free speech is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater is it right, ethical or moral behavior.
Rather than talking about free speech we could address the possibility that we could come to an agreement to:
In short, it is my considered opinion that a discussion of free speech is only meaningful if considered in context of a goal which is mutually respectful. As all my readers know I have many very passionate opinions which I do not hesitate to state. I hope that I can continue to practice the goal of stating them with a question mark at the end.
Written May 13, 2016
It is that time of the year again. High schools and colleges are holding graduation ceremonies. I am well aware that some students graduate in December, but this seems to be the time of the year when many notable people are invited to speak to graduating seniors. I am not surprised when publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, publish articles about free speech. Just this morning, May 13, 2016 the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled “Why Free Speech matters on Campus” by Michael Bloomberg and Charles Koch. (page A13).
Most of us have been acutely aware of the seeming intolerance exhibited by opposing sides in the current presidential campaign in the United States. I am, of course, also aware that intolerance for what others say or do is fueling violent behavior in many places around the globe. All too often the God of one’s understanding is blamed or credited for the intolerant views. We humans often seem convinced that the God of our understanding needs us to protect His, Her or its reputation or place in the hierarchy of this universe.
So often as I age (actually it has been happening since I was quite young even by the standards of youthful ageists) I am unsure of the authorship of certain thoughts or questions. For example, when I was reading about free speech this morning, the questions of freedom from or freedom to rushed to the forefront of my mind. Perhaps I first heard these questions from Professor Charles West at Princeton Theological seminary, Water Kaufman at Princeton University or one of my esteemed philosophy professors at the University of Maryland. Perhaps it was first uttered to me by my Grandmother Pickett, my Aunt Pleasie, or my Uncle Harold. This thought may have been first provoked by my observance of the bullies I encountered as a young child. I have no idea. Regardless, it seems to me that the questions of freedom to and freedom from are important questions which we need to explore with our children beginning at a very early age.
If one asks the question, freedom to, one might consider:
- The freedom to bully.
- The freedom to kill those who are weaker, smaller, less powerful, or less willing to engage in violence.
- The freedom to hurl hurtful invectives
- The freedom to live off the largess of others.
- The freedom to wear costumes which some might experience as offensive or the freedom to wear no costumes.
- The freedom to worship or not worship a particular deity or no deity.
- The freedom to oppress others.
- The freedom to control or even own own others.
- The freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater.
- The freedom to end one’s life when one chooses.
- The freedom to live with the consequences of one’s actions or to be have a helping hand when one makes a choice with negative consequences.
- The freedom to have an equal share of resources.
- The freedom to have the best health care available.
Obviously one can continues to list such questions until one has filled up many pages. On the other hand, one could think in terms of freedom from and ask:
- Freedom from hunger or suffering in extreme conditions without housing.
- Freedom from the interference of others in one’s life.
- Freedom from bullies or other oppressive behavior.
- Freedom from being one’s brothers (or sisters) keeper.
- Freedom from rules or laws which restrict one.
- Freedom from those who would disrespect the God of one’s understanding or one’s religion.
- Freedom from others determining what is attractive or polite behavior
I do not personally like behavior which discounts, dismisses, is intentionally hurtful, controlling or destructive towards others. I do not think that finances, physical strength, or intellectual strength should be used to restrict the ability of others to live.
I am very uncomfortable with negative name calling or any form of violence – verbal, psychological (sometimes too vague) or physical. On the other hand, I do not want laws which restrict the right of political candidates to say what they think even if what they are saying is hurtful to me or others. Yet, if their language is likely to cause grave offense to others then, at the very least, it is distasteful and not to be encouraged.
I would certainly defend “the right’ of others to publish drawings or words which are offensive to certain groups. For example, I would defend “the right’ of Charlie Hebdo to have published controversial cartoons what depicted the Prophet Muhammed and lampooned Islamic radicals. At the same time, I think asking if he had the right begs the larger question. Why would one deliberately do something to offend another individuals or group of individuals? I would also ask, “Why posit a God whom one believes one has to violently defend? Why conceptualize a God for whom one has to kill others? Islamic radicals are not the first to do this. Certainly the history of Christianity is rife with such examples. To this day, many Christians feel very strongly about their “duty” to defend their right to insure that others do not engage in behavior which they believe the God of their understanding finds offensive.
Clearly one has the “right” to engage in behavior which is labeled as free speech. On the other hand, if the exercise of our free speech is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater is it right, ethical or moral behavior.
Rather than talking about free speech we could address the possibility that we could come to an agreement to:
- Not say or engage in any behavior which is intended to disrespect the thinking of others.
- Engage in behavior which is designed to respectfully challenge our own thinking and the thinking of others.
- Practice listening to the opinions and concerns of others.
- Agree to refrain from sound bites which are designed to get attention, but which are not designed to facilitate helpful discussions. I realize that this would severely limit the speeches or talks of many political candidates, some clergy, bullies and others.
- Challenge each other to switch sides of the debate – to be willing to see the other side.
- Open ourselves to the possibility that we do not possess “the answers” or “the ultimate” truth no matter the passion with which we are convinced that, in fact, we and only we have descended from the mountain with the revised tablets.
- Consider the possibility that everyone, no matter how diverse our opinions are sacred occupants of this planet.
In short, it is my considered opinion that a discussion of free speech is only meaningful if considered in context of a goal which is mutually respectful. As all my readers know I have many very passionate opinions which I do not hesitate to state. I hope that I can continue to practice the goal of stating them with a question mark at the end.
Written May 13, 2016
RSS Feed