What is best for all citizens
A Christian defending the right to open debate
As already mentioned, a Christian sees the whole political brouhaha as a side show in the great story of God’s redemptive work in history.
It has importance for a season, but it is not ultimate. We resist all the “this election is the turning point for our nation” nonsense. No, the turning point for all humanity and history was when Jesus died on the cross. But that does not mean we do not care about the people and nation we live in.
Not All Good is a Moral Good
As I have been reflecting on my role as a Christian in a representative republic, I have concluded that there are some “non-moral” issues that are part of my assessment of candidates. These pertain to the rights of citizens and the principles of government. These are secured in the Constitution. Our Constitution matters because it orders government and government officials are sworn to uphold it.
I want people leading who have a high regard for our governing document, the rights it secures — and a high regard for the process of change if change is sought. They take vows to uphold it. The alternative is lawlessness.
The One Right that is Foundational to All Others
These principles matters deeply. But I make one Constitutional principle a test for who I will vote for.1 I do that because if this principle is lost, all hope for change nearly disappears with it.
Which one is it?
The First Amendment
The one I have owned as supreme is a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
The First Amendment: What is it?
I told an older friend I was a supporter of the First Amendment. He asked, “What’s that?” Here is my splainer.
When there was a debate about our Constitution, one of the great concerns of many was that a powerful centralized government needed to be limited by the rights of its citizens. The Bill of Rights was written to do exactly that. Many states voted in favor of the Constitution on the understanding that the Bill of Rights would follow.2
The First Amendment: Why is it?
There is one purpose to this amendment. It limits government by protecting citizens rights in the practice of their religion without giving government the power to require a preferred religion. It protects the right of citizens to protest, and of journalists to criticize.
It created a society in which government could not control the debate or the arguments made for change. While there are a few limits to this right, in general any idea, not matter how wrong, could be stated and debated.3
Why?
What could be the reason for this? Simply put, whoever holds the reins of power in government is tempted to use their power to control the people and suppress dissent. The framers had to decide between a public conversation and public religion restricted by the government, or the limitation of government power so that free exchange of ideas (even terrible ones) and personal religious preferences can take place. They knew that once the power to restrict was given, it would never be limited in its application.
This is not a moral principle
Let’s not confuse moral evaluation with free speech. The purpose of the amendment is to tolerate and accept all speech, even speech that is immoral or perverse (again, under certain guidelines). Why? because restricting them would be an abuse of government power. Limiting government control must be ensured even at the price of immoral speech.
As Christians, I know I confused these. But as I have learned about the reasons for free speech, and the history of defending free speech, I have seen its wise purpose. It forces debate. It insists that as citizens we must accept things we find offensive, argue against them, and win the argument — but we are not to use government power to control them. It is interesting that both the left and the right’s first instinct is to control speech. Freedom of speech is not our instinct when people say offensive things. Control is. And when government controls, it is absolute and coercive.
What is a greater threat — government control or open debate of offensive or immoral ideas?
This is a wise principle
There are really only two options here. Either the state has the power to determine what is and is not to be believed or allowed to be spoken — or the free exchange of ideas is the forum where all ideas (even bad ones) are tested. Our Constitution chose the latter.
Absolute Power Rejected
Our Constitution intentionally rejects any form of absolute power or authority over government (we are not a theocracy), except certain rights of citizens. This means that truth must be discovered by debate. The First Amendment secures that right.
Jonathan Rauch makes the case that freedom of speech and open debate was the means chosen by the Constitution for our society to discover the truth. Our Constitution deliberately creates a context for deliberation in which all opinions are debated.
I think this is good. I want to ensure that every citizen’s right to speak and argue their case is protected — nit just Christians.
The First Amendment: Not a threat but a protection for all
Let me restate this. As a Christian, I used to confuse the lack of restriction of free speech with the dangers of immorality. For most of my life I perceived the protections of the first amendment to be threatening. After all, most of the people I knew who defended civil liberties were seeking wholesale change to our view of marriage, family, and sexuality.
I was a restricted free speech advocate.
The First Amendment Then and Now
But for the last ten years I have read a great deal about the first amendment and its wisdom.
As a result I have become engaged with F.I.R.E. (the leading first amendment non-profit). I learned that freedom of religion was first advocated by Christians in the Romans world (see Liberty in the Things of God). I have come to respect the leaders of First Amendment protections because they are deeply principled — even to the point of a Jewish Attorney (Ira Glasser) defending the right of Nazi’s to have a march in a predominantly Jewish community.
I have come to see through people like Jonathan Rauch that the first amendment does indeed allow people to advocate and argue for many things. That right should be protected, even when they advocate for immoral causes.
If they have a right to make their argument, then I must answer, not with coercive restrictions, but with a persuasive case. The answer to immoral causes is careful argument for moral ones,
The First Amendment: Present State
Since 2013 I have collected articles and stories of the suppression of free speech. I collected records of scientific research being withdrawn when certain groups denounced the conclusions. My file contains actions of universities, media organizations, governments, and peer reviewed journals that censored ideas.
We are witnessing the unmasking of government surveillance, restriction amd punishment of people for their views (not their actions! There are people seeking to criminalize what is called hate speech. Brazil, Canada, Britain, Scotland, and the EU have passed laws that make it illegal to write or say certain things. Germany recently tried a journalist for suggesting that their authoritarian Covid policy has a great deal in common with the Nazi’s. They called him a terrorist, even though other media organizations had used a similar analogy to describe other government actions. While these countries do not have our history with freedom of speech, the trends are alarming.
I also follow Michael Shellenberger (a man of the left) and Matt Taibbi (also on the left and an award winning journalist) who are exposing the threats to free speech in our day. I am also supportive of new colleges like the University of Austin which is founded on the free exchange of ideas and debate.
The Self-righteous and Proud
I find that those who wish to restrict speech invariable do so out of a sense of arrogance, of intellectual and moral superiority, and of fear of allowing the masses to be exposed to ideas they do not approve.
After listening to a recent debate about the need for internet controls, I was struck by the paternalistic hubris of those who thought it was necessary to protect ordinary (and apparently) stupid citizens from misinformation. They, of course, are the enlightened ones.
Why I Think It Matters
I have become a bit of a free speech absolutist. There are two reasons:
First, I, as a Christian, want to protect the rights of others to speak and argue their case — even if I think they are wrong. And I hope they will protect mine.
This means that I, as a Christian, need to stop trying to use the levers of power to win, and go about the hard work of doing my homework to make a case for God’s ways in a way that is compelling.
As a grandfather of 8, I do not want my grandchildren growing up in a world in which people in power can use their power to suppress debate, control scientific conclusions, cause others to lose their jobs, or force people to spend their life savings to defend themselves on charges of "hate speech."
A regime that has such power will not lead us into a better society but into a dead end. If all scientific research must reach predetermined conclusions, if all university faculty must conform to an ideology, if all advocacy for ideas that are counter to the majority are prohibited — then we will cease to learn and advance.
Second, more than that, once that power is given, who knows who will be in power next and how they will use it?
This is one major issue that will determine my vote
I cannot support candidates who do not support and live by the Constitution. I cannot support candidates whose platform includes legislation to control misinformation. I cannot support candidates who want to use government power to punish people for their views, no matter how offensive. (A great critique of wrong views revealed in the VP debate is found here. A rough and tumble R rated speech describing the current mess and advocating against control is here. The issue is a problem for the right and the left according to this.)
I view each of those statements as of greatest importance because a trajectory of control and rejecting the protections of the First Amendment will set a course which will not be changed easily and which will affect generations to come.
`
Yes, there are many principles that are important, but this one is foundational.
Plain, Honest Men would be one of many good books to consider.
The limitations of free speech are well established. After reading on this for years, I discovered that I was quite ignorant of them. And I find most others are too. I would recommend First Things First as a primer.