“If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to want a glass of milk,” (Laura Joffe Numeroff and Felicia Bond. If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.). This is arguably one of the most accurate allegories ever penned. When something is given to appease the ill content it sets a dangerous precedent, and the more giving that takes place, the stronger that precedent becomes. So it is that when rights and liberties are relinquished for one reason or another it becomes that much easier to reduce them a little more. Eventually, the time will come when there is nothing left to give, unless at some point the people say, “STOP!” Freedom of speech and religion are under slow attack as efforts are made to restrict them, and unless the American people stand firm these freedoms will eventually disappear entirely.
The most frequent burden upon freedom of speech is the argument of some speech being harmful to certain audiences or the public in general. In March 2006, a funeral was held in honor of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, a soldier killed in action during the war on terror. Not far away a church group was protesting with verbal and written messages speaking unfavorably about the country, the military, and perhaps the deceased and funeral guests directly as well. The father of the late marine sued the church leader, and won a huge settlement in the lower courts. After an appeal undid that settlement this argument found its way to the United States Supreme Court. The case is perceived as one that will set a powerful precedent to affect the future of freedom of speech.
Clearly, freedom of speech is not perfect. The messages presented by the religious group near this funeral were cruel, hurtful, untimely, and rude to say the least. Despite the unpleasantness of their content the messages expressed at this funeral are as if a simple case of name calling when compared to other graphic horrors written and spoken throughout the country. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and various splinter factions regularly speak unkindly about other races and ethnicities in public. Evangelists from around the world travel to Salt Lake City to shout unpleasant comments when the Latter-Day Saints gather for their semiannual conferences. During, but not limited to, the 2008 primary and presidential campaign there was no shortage of irreverent comments toward Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, not to mention women in general on a daily basis. Nevertheless, it was in 1791, and to this day remains, important that citizens be able not just to have their opinions and ideals, but to be able to share them publicly without fear of prosecution.
The Supreme Court has a tremendous opportunity in this case. Should they rule that the First Amendment protects the comments of the church group then life will continue without interruption. Should they decide the First Amendment does not apply in this instance, there could be broad consequences. Rules would have to be created or altered to determine how people can protest. Similarly, there would be changes to how people can share their opinions on religion, about the military, and politics. Conceivably these rules could include being so far away that the people protesting can’t be heard, and a list of words and phrases that can’t be used, because they are unpleasant, would be in need of constant update every time somebody heard one they did not like. Little by little freedom of speech will be eaten away in the attempt to please those who disapprove of what is being said. There is a statement often attributed to Benjamin Franklin or Voltaire, modern historians now speculate neither of them said this and remain uncertain to whom it can be credited, that speaks to how this matter should be settled: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
One opponent to freedom of religion has been the gay rights movement, and religion has already suffered a loss. In California, two doctors, because of their religious beliefs, declined to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient. These doctors arranged, out of their own pockets, for the patient to see another physician who had no qualms about the matter, and the patient has had three children since. In 2008, the patient sued the first two doctors for discrimination. This case eventually came before the California Supreme Court where it was unanimously decided that the doctors’ freedom of religion is trumped by the civil rights of the patient.
There are several key facts to display the lack of support for freedom of religion. The doctors did not deny treatment to an unwell patient; they declined to perform an elective procedure for personal reasons. Furthermore, the doctors went out of their way to arrange for the patient to still have her elective procedure with another physician, which the patient accepted and has had three successful procedures since. In addition the court’s decision is contradictory; freedom of religion is a civil right. Therefore the court’s decision can be interpreted several different ways: that the rights of two are less important than the rights of one, or possibly that the rights of one member of a minority (homosexuals) are more important than two members of a majority (heterosexuals), among other interpretations. Regardless of their reasoning, the precedent that freedom of religion can be trumped has been set.
This opens up the possibility of churches being attacked in a variety of ways since freedom of religion is no longer a reliable shield. There are many faiths that do not condone various activities or life choices, homosexuality one among many. Without freedom of religion, churches can be forced to perform ordinances for people not in alignment with their faith; the law would force them to commit what churches and churchgoers could perceive as blasphemy. Some churches would have to alter the teachings of their rhetoric, for some teachings, such as the discouragement of homosexuality, if not protected by freedom of religion, could easily be relabeled hate speech or discrimination. These are merely the conservative possibilities to which religions of every kind, having so many different philosophies between them, will be vulnerable. With more rules and regulations churches would become more and more uniform until an eventual point where the state could conceivably control every detail about theology in the country.
Restriction by definition states that more will be lost than gained. A decision is made to limit speech because of certain circumstances but it creates a precedent for more restrictions. Altering the idea of freedom of religion to freedom from disagreeable religion sets the stage for churches not necessarily run directly by the state but to teach by the dictates of it.
Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better to allow the guilty to go unpunished then to punish the innocent. Shouldn’t this same concept apply to our constitutional rights.
well said!
ReplyDelete