In this slower White Album take of the classic track, John Lennon deliberately tweaks the verses:
But when you talk about destructionI believed that John specifically wanted to signify that he had mixed feelings about the volatile protest movement against the Vietnam War--and American government involvement. An opponent of the War, John did not approve of the use of force/violence by protesters and was deeply suspicious of the hidden agenda of certain leftist groups allied with the anti-war coalition.
Don't you know you can count me out in
Make no mistake: I oppose restrictions against free expression, by the State or others. (There are certain boundary exceptions in conflict with other people's natural rights, e.g., fraud or slander.)
Actor George Clooney, during the recent The Interview kerfuffle, said, "With the First Amendment, you’re never protecting Jefferson; it’s usually protecting some guy who’s burning a flag or doing something stupid. This is a silly comedy, but the truth is, what it now says about us is a whole lot. We have a responsibility to stand up against this."
Actually, Clooney was quite mistaken in choosing Jefferson. Remember this? "Jefferson's exact quote, made famous by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who wore it on his T-shirt the day he killed 168 people (including 19 children), is "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."" (I recall there was some school kerfuffle about banning t-shirts bearing this quote or other images "promoting violence"; the federal courts have given schools some broad discretion to restrict free expression through dress codes based on context, even in one notorious case t-shirts bearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo.)
But, just as I want to see an end to the War on Drugs, even though I personally reject the notion of recreational drugs and believe that drugs are a horrible way to abuse one's body (in fact, after an outpatient procedure a few years back, I barely touched my prescribed pain pills), I reject the notion of censorship, even though many abuse free expression, including anti-faith insults which I condemn as unconditionally immoral. Elizabeth BeShears makes an interesting related point on right-libertarians like me:
3. They believe society should enforce morality
Because of their likelihood of being religious (the “right”) coupled with a belief in keeping the government out of the private lives of individuals (the “libertarian”), many right libertarians are more likely to view social shaming and ostracism as acceptable methods of making a moral society.
To be clear: this does not make the right libertarian necessarily intolerant. It simply means that right libertarians feel they are entitled to their rights of association—to not converse with people whose actions they do not approve of—and free speech—to criticize those actions or people—as long as they are not impeding the negative rights of others.I think the "religious" tag is dubious, but I think many of us act on a common cultural set of societal norms, moral principles and responsibilities/duties and attempt to practice the virtues in our daily lives. Whereas there are nuanced differences, these idealized character traits include tolerance, consideration, and empathy. These are not laws per se, but there are consequences for violating relevant expectations. If one of my relatives develops an addiction (vs. practicing the virtue of moderation) to alcohol, gambling, or drugs, I will not enable his dysfunctional behavior; I will be frank and criticize his behavior (and provide moral support if and when he makes the decision to get clean), but the bottom line is that he has free will and has full responsibility for his life's decisions, which I have to accept with a Thomistic sense of tolerance. Similarly, the State needs to respect his unalienable rights. At the same time I don't see the tragedy that some people are bent on a self-destructive course in their lives as some sort of validation of freedom.
To a right libertarian, you are free to be a promiscuous, drug-using hippy—and the right libertarian has the right to criticize you for it. She believes that is her right, possibly even her duty, to call out bad behaviors. She sees social pressure as a societally regulating mechanism. But she isn’t going to use the state against you or demand that a law is passed. Or, as one person put it, “Being a right libertarian is all about holding moral standards but knowing that you have zero right whatsoever to enforce them. Two neighbors cannot vote the alcohol out of the hands of a third neighbor.”
When the attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo occurred a week ago, I was horrified as most people. I wasn't familiar with the magazine, but nothing it wrote, however disagreeable in nature it might be, justified the cold-blooded murder of a dozen people. I share the Lockean notion of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property. Nothing I'm about to write diminishes that; I'm not looking to excuse, rationalize or dismiss the horror of what happened.
Free speech/expression is a natural aspect of our liberty. Generally speaking, we should seek an open, transparent market of ideas. In science, robust progress depends on communication of scientific facts, constructs and standard measures, hypothesized relationships, evidence, and analytical methods to evaluate the evidence. Among other things, without information sharing we would likely duplicate efforts and be unable to leverage resources. Any censorship of science would impair but not eliminate science: it would likely displace it to the black market, secret communications: The State has no control or evidence of scientific thought; censorship is not only ultimately futile and counterproductive (i.e., the forbidden apple), but expensive to implement and maintain. In a similar way, I view expression of political thought as virtually unenforceable; if anything else, it can serve as a safety/release valve vs. more violent behavior.
Expression/speech, however, can be abused; there is a moral dimension to speech: it can adversely affect the natural rights of other people. One cannot slander/libel other people, engage in fraud, commit perjury in testimony at a trial, report the private health information of others, mislead an employer about one's education record or job history, harass an emotionally vulnerable person to the point of suicide, lie to a romantic interest about one's marital history or sexual orientation, etc.
Hostile, insulting, condescending or provocative speech is in a similarly ethically ambiguous category: disparaging someone's family and friends or racial/ethnic identity, ridiculing their closely-held religious beliefs, etc. can be seen as threatening and in my view a violation of the non-aggression principle. People have a right to defend themselves against aggressive behavior, and the situation can quickly escalate from there. I do understand there's a difference between verbal and physical aggression (short of threats to one's personal safety), and my personal preference is to deescalate the situation by disengagement. (That being said, I have found myself personally flamed in forums, and I've been known to throw back twice as hard. It amuses me when the other side hypocritically complains.)
Now some countries, including France, have implemented "hate speech" laws against a growing laundry list of politically correct protected groups of people--some of these even prosecute the dissemination of revisionist histories, e.g., denial of the fact of the Holocaust. Now I personally oppose these laws as arbitrary and highly subjective, which violates the concept of the rule of law, never mind has a chilling effect on free expression; to give a simple example, Atlanta's mayor recently terminated a fire chief who as a Baptist wrote a book that briefly discussed Old Testament teachings on the procreative nature of sex in the context of traditional marriage; LGBT groups were offended, considering his right to his religious views a mortal sin against diversity and pushed for the chief's dismissal, although the chief's exemplary job performance and relevant behavior on the job was not in question. I do find a role for society to play in terms of promoting tolerant behavior, including isolation of those engaging in destabilizing behavior, but violent behavior should be equally repugnant, not more equal because of membership in some protected group.
In France's case, a number of Muslim natives were offended by Charlie Hebdo's biting commentaries and cartoons at the expense of Muslims and their faith, but French courts had largely given the magazine a pass under the hate speech law, and there was an expectations problem: many Muslims felt the French government was applying a double standard.
And what was the magazine's response to the Church's support over the recent tragedy?
But Charlie’s own solicitor admitted the fact, when Charlie Hebdo was unsuccessfully prosecuted by Islamic associations for having published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. The paper was dying because of the steady decline of its readership, selling less than 10,000 copies a week. The first million – yes, million! – copies of the first issue of the “satirical weekly” to come out after the bloody terrorist attack just one week ago were sold out in the whole of France shortly after ten o’clock this Wednesday morning. So who could possibly be buying all those copies of a blatantly Trotskyist, obscene, blasphemous, and ugly magazine whose front page this week portrays a caricature of Mohammed, complete with a hardly subliminal portrayal of his head as a male sexual organ, bearing the official slogan “I am Charlie” and saying: “All is forgiven”?
[Charlie Hebdo] lawyer Richard Malka said that was the last thing they should do.“Do you [Muslims] want to be treated equally [as Catholics]? Really, don’t ask for too much, we’re going to give it you! Do you really want to be treated equally? How can you seriously be asking for that? What I can tell you is that even at Charlie Hebdo, they wouldn’t dare to do a tenth of that against Mohammed. No one in this country would dare to do a tenth of that against the Prophet Mohammed!” I cannot decently describe here how Charlie Hebdo portrayed the Holy Trinity on its front page, I need only say that drawing was published during the debate about same-sex “marriage,” in which the libertarian and anarchistic writing team of the paper enthusiastically took sides with the destruction of the mainstay of society.
What made us laugh the most is that the bells of Notre Dame rang in our honor. We would like to send a message to Pope Francis-- who also was Charlie this week: We will only accept the bells of Notre Dame ringing in our honor when it is Femen who make them ring." (Femen is the radical feminist group whose members have staged topless demonstrations in several European cathedrals.)As a Catholic, I've been highly offended by "artistic" creations like "Piss Christ" and Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary;”which basically apply #1 and #2 to the most revered figures in Christianity. Whereas the relevant exhibits did attract protests, there wasn't the equivalent of a fatwa against the artists; one can only wonder how fundamentalist Muslims would respond to a comparable depiction of their beloved Prophet. Now my personal response was to ignore the provocations, just like I ignore flag burnings and other disagreeable forms of protests; I had no intention of supporting museums or other events looking to profit from blasphemy. Like an adolescent they want attention, to provoke a response; the best reaction is to deprive them of what they really want. In part, they want to call attention to overreactions as hypocritically judgmental.
I do think in an integrated society like ours; one should be sensitive to and tolerant of religious differences. As familiar readers are aware, I started college with the intent of becoming a Roman Catholic priest (to the point I was initially interviewed in the OLL men's dorm by a Jesuit, from the same religious teaching order as Pope Francis). During my academic career, I interviewed for a faculty position at a Protestant-affiliated university in, of all places, Salt Lake City, UT. My top 3 friends during my adult career are a Baptist, a Jew and a Hindu; I also worked as a subcontractor for a Muslim project manager during Ramadan at a blue-chip management consulting company headquartered in the DC suburbs. I will say at times my patience has been tested such as when I worked at a client site in the Provo, Utah area, and my client DBA counterpart spent half the time trying to proselytize me to LDS (which put me in a particularly difficult position). One of my first girlfriends was anti-Catholic. During the notorious pedophile scandals rocking the Church several years back, my patience was tested as tens of thousands of American Roman Catholic priests, including a beloved maternal uncle and one of the best men I've ever known, were smeared by association with a handful of rogue priests whose bishops mishandled their cases, in part due to dubious reliance on psychologist claims that the problem priests had been "cured" In contrast, it seems that there isn't a day that goes by without a report of some married female teacher having sex with male students, but I don't hear claims of the public school system aiding and abetting a culture of sexual predators. As for me as a male academic and professional, I've never had a date or personal relationship with a student or colleague; in fact, I had a policy against my office door being closed when a coed visited during office hours.
Whenever the subject of religious matters came across, the tone was mostly one out of curiosity and mutual respect. For example, I saw my Hindu friend wearing this colorful string around his wrist and learned about the celebration of Raksha Bandhan, an endearing celebration of sibling love between brothers and sisters (I'm sure my four little sisters feel left out), or he would go into meticulous detail about the statue of the Hindu goddess mounted on his dashboard. I noticed my Muslim project manager didn't join us on an occasional group lunch at a local restaurant. My Jewish friend promised to invite me to his next Passover Seder (but I ended up leaving the company in the interim). I wouldn't say that we always agreed; for instance, my Jewish and Hindu friends were stridently pro-abortion (in fact, the former claimed one of his girlfriends during his salad days had one), but basically we agreed to disagree. (I don't even think I raised the topic; they knew my religion and and I think wanted to see my reaction. The fact of the matter is that I was pro-life before I knew the Church's position, based strictly on biology.)
Every once in a while, I might tweak one of my friends, discussing dietary restrictions. For example, my favorite cultural dishes, as a Franco-American, which I haven't enjoyed in years, are tourtière and cretons (a key ingredient is ground pork; Mom hasn't made them my last few visits because of my folks' medical/dietary restrictions). I remember how a high school Jewish friend looked at me in utter contempt when I asked about keeping kosher, saying in a condescending tone, "I'm not an orthodox Jew; I'm a reformed Jew." I've probably worked with a dozen or two Indians, some of whom ate burgers like the rest of us, and others who ate chicken in addition to the common veggie fare. A basic reason in mentioning this point is that there are a number of nuances among people of faith, and I'm less likely to form blanket judgments, e.g., on Muslims and fundamentalist sects.
I do believe, given the nature of communication, that the tone and content should be respectful; hostile speech can be divisive and unduly escalate tensions, a violation of a variation of the non-aggression principle. Nevertheless, I do not agree with speech codes. Among other things, it can result in a de facto ban of critical scholarly pieces on a religion by a small, politically connected group of malcontents, which would violate academic freedom. I also don't want my opinion associated with certain Muslim critiques that, e.g., the Charlie cartoons should have been banned consistent with France's hate speech law, that the French courts are biased against Muslims, and/or the magazine had it coming to them. The record shows that Charlie is obnoxious across the board. These murders were counterproductive, doing more to advance anti-Muslim sentiment in the West and undermining the efforts of those of us pushing a non-interventionist foreign policy. What the terrorists did do was to make martyrs of democracy of obnoxious French satirists, fire up sentiment for far-right political parties which don't want Muslim immigrants, and fire up circulation of a dying satirical magazine that could barely attract sales of 10,000 to multi-million issues defiantly featuring another irreverent likeness of Mohammed.
In summary, I don't see hostile speech as the litmus test of liberty; at the same time, Muslims need to understand in a politically and culturally diverse country, Islam is not immune to criticisms that are also leveled, contrary to common misunderstanding, at other religions, often in the form of derisive humor and discourse. One does not promote understanding or win converts by a climate of intimidation and fear. In the West, we have a saying: don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff. In Christianity, we know God is all-powerful and all-knowing; we do not act as instruments of God's vengeance: God doesn't want us to act as His sword; He wants us to patiently honor, love, and forgive all of His children, for all the flowers are beautiful in their own colors. Jesus taught us to forgive and to leave judgment to God. We believe man has the right and responsibility of free will; yes, we should act to stop sins destabilizing society, like violence and theft, but leave matters of faith to God alone, for in these matters God is the best judge. God's law is a higher standing than man's law; one cannot compel virtue from others, but we win hearts and minds by our own practice of the virtues.
