Free Speech for Unity

Since Sen. Barack Obama’s election as the next president of our Republic, I have received a plethora of racially-charged and derogatory E-mails about him. The following two relatively mild examples illustrate the tone of these messages:

(a) Special Bulletin – The White House rose garden will be plowed under and converted to a watermelon patch.

(b) US government clocks will be reset to CFT (Colored Folks Time) upon Obama’s inauguration.

Common decency prevents me from citing other more obnoxious examples.

I admit that some of these “jokes” are funny and, at least initially, elicited chuckles from me; but, reflection on the inappropriate content of these messages stimulated me to use this blog entry to decry their racially negative, even insulting, contexts. Further reflection suggested such an approach would indicate I had succumbed to “Political Correctness” by criticizing expressions of our Constitutionally protected right to free speech, no matter how hateful. More prolong consideration, however, led to this present entry.

Before getting to the “meat” of this entry, I must admit that I am a professing Judeo-Christian, albeit one who struggles to proclaim, witness to, and serve the God I worship as Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, when under the influences of my better angels, I view all of life through the primary lens of Judeo-Christianity based upon my understanding of Holy Scripture and its application. My secondary lens is science, a profession I have practiced throughout most of my life. That is, I strive to be data-driven to the greatest extent possible. I cannot, nor do I wish to, abandon either Judeo-Christianity or science.

How do these disciplines relate to “jokes” such as those cited above? First, simply because we have the Constitutionally protected right to, and responsibility for, free speech doesn’t mean we should always exercise that prerogative. St. Paul, throughout his own epistles and those attributed to him, speaks eloquently to this point. His admonition from the fifth chapter of Galatians appears particularly appropriate to the subject of this blog:

"For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another."

That is, we should use our freedom of speech to build up one another and the unity of this Republic rather seeking to tear down our political opponents by vicious personal attacks. By no means do I advocate prohibiting legitimate criticism (although I prefer the term, critique) of the policies advocated and implemented by our governmental officials and candidates for these offices. Furthermore, we should preserve our long history of political satire as often expressed in editorial cartoons, comic strips (e.g., Doonesbury and Mallard), the opening scenes of Saturday Night Live, and talk radio programs (Boortz and Limbaugh) to name a few modern examples.

Reasoned critiques and satire can change the mind of the electorate; but, hateful speech, especially when focused on personalities, physical attributes, religious preferences, and racial stereotypes, inexorably leads to divisiveness. Do not misunderstand my position: I will fight against any attempt to use our legal system to enforce “Political Correctness” that in any way limits the full and free expression of our First Amendment rights. Obviously, there are some valid legal exceptions not protected through this amendment, such as libel, slander, perjury, revealing state secrets important to protection of the Republic, etc.

I advocate St. Paul’s position of restraining our right to free speech through respect, if not love, for another. After all, history shows the inadequacy of laws, no matter how harsh and justly implemented, to change human nature at a fundamental level. Laws at best can attempt to control behavior. More effectively but difficult, we must work to change hearts and minds, then alterations in behavior will automatically follow.

The survival of the Republic mandates that we eschew circulating personally demeaning “jokes” and diatribes about our political leaders and candidates. Consider the following analogy:

The powers-that-be in the Defense Department decide to promote an Army colonel, who happens to be black, to Brigadier General. This new general rose through the ranks primarily because of his (or her) primary expertise in non-combat areas, some peers would even say because of political connections.

Another colonel, a true fire-breathing Caucasian warrior with a chest full of medals won on the battlefield, also aspired to the new position in the same unit. He was greatly disappointed not have been promoted. One night, after a few drinks too many at the officers club, this Colonel remarked, “Now that we have a black commanding general, all of our Meals Ready To Eat will contain watermelon.”

The next day the colonel is called to appear before the general and read the riot act for making such a disrespectful and disparaging remark. The general asks, “Why did you disrespect me and the position I hold?”

The colonel responds, “I made a joke about you personally, not the office you hold. I will continue to salute you and will attempt to carry out your legitimate orders to the best of my ability because you are my commanding general.”

The general says, “You cannot separate me from my position. When you disrespect me on a personal basis you demean my position as your commander. If you disagree with my command decisions, there are appropriate channels for you to express you opinions. The officers club is not a suitable forum.”

Now, regardless of what next happen next to the colonel, he has a blot on his career.

By analogy, I do not see how we can avoid disrespecting the office of President of the United States with the demeaning “jokes” and racially-charged comments circulating on the internet about President-elect Obama. So what? These types of comments and inflamed reactions they generate play into the hands of our enemies by suggesting we are not united in our resolve not only to survive but to prevail. If we denigrate our leaders, our enemies can justifiably reason that we are divided and then exploit those divisions.

Again, as in the case with the general and colonel, we can disagree with opinions, policies, theologies, and politics through the proper channels. To do otherwise puts us in extreme peril considering the nature of our enemies. The dangers our Republic faces from both internal and external enemies mandates that we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable and fomenting disunity of purpose.

I suggest two small steps toward unity of resolve: (1) Refrain from the racially-charged, demeaning, and derogatory type of material presently circulating about President-elect Obama and other “liberals” or, for that matter, “conservatives” and (2) In our spoken and written comments, always refer to our leaders by their honorifics, for example, Senator McCain, President Bush, President-elect (President) Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi (OK, that one hurts!).

Larger steps would be to offer reasoned critiques of policies and philosophies, not personalities and to suggest positive solutions rather than inveighing against past “sins” and harping on who is more responsible for our present difficulties.

Keep the faith.