Freedom of...what?

In these rights-infested times, some clarity regarding the purpose of our freedoms is needed. (At least I need some of this clarity.)

I recently discussed some ideas which I'm sure aren't original with me, but which finally found some purchase in this dull gray matter I call my brain. (I suspect that an original thought has never sprouted inside my cranium. Rather, as science once "proved" that maggots originate from rancid meat, I merely fail to recall who planted the idea.) As one of my purposes in this blog is to organize my thoughts in writing, I want to collect and clarify what I posted in that discussion, namely the purposes of America's guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

The discussion began by addressing the recent ridicule of Islam which began with caricatures of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper. I defended such ridicule by noting that Islam is a false religion, and that Elijah had similarly ridiculed the idolatrous Baalists of his day. Demonstrating its falsehood is no overwhelming task, as I noted:

We just have to be familiar enough with the Bible to know that Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me." And yep, you guessed it, that "Me" excludes Mohammed, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard and all other false messiahs and prophets.

If all freedom of religion does is allow everybody to practice whatever religion he chooses, it accomplishes very little of value. Rather, freedom of religion allows disciples of Christ to follow "the Way, the Truth and the Life" unmolested. To desire for others the opportunity to follow Islam or Buddhism or Wicca or Scientology is not benevolence. It is, rather, to wish upon them the swift condemnation of a jealous God when they stand before Him someday.

Does this mean I'm advocating abolishing the "free exercise" clause and establishing a state religion? Hardly. America recognizes what most Americans recognized at her founding: that Christianity is true, but that if those of us who choose to follow Christ are to have the freedom to do so unmolested, each of us must be provided the opportunity to discover that truth and make his own decision of what to do about it.

Similarly, regarding freedom of speech:

I won't defend to the death your right to stand in the park and chant, "I like peanut butter and jelly!" What good does that speech do? Maybe it helps you feel better, and I suppose that's worth something. But it's hardly worthy of inclusion in such a noble concept as discourse aimed at the discovery of truth, is it?

Nonsense is included in "freedom of speech" merely because all speech must be protected from censorship if useful discourse is to go unmolested. (Otherwise we would have some speech-judge determining what is useful and what is not. And wisdom and impartiality in speech-judges isn't exactly something we count on.)

So just as freedom of religion protects false religions in order to protect Christianity, freedom of speech protects nonsensical gibberish in order to protect beneficial discourse. But the protection of gibberish cannot elevate it to an equality with reasonable discourse, any more than the protection of Scientology can elevate it to equality with Christianity. Nor do either of these protections logically require respect for and/or acceptance of pointless speech and bunk religions.

I've pursued these ideas after looking more deeply into the founding of this nation, particularly from the perspective of individual and national virtue, and have begun (finally!) to understand what is rarely - if ever - taught in the classroom: that the goal of America's founding was to build a nation that would promote the betterment of men and of mankind.

The founders were highly educated men, and had given serious study to political theory. They saw the value of freedom of thought, and so ensured Americans the opportunity to pursue excellence via religion and discourse. They saw in themselves and in one another Americans struggling toward these high and noble goals, and I don't think they even contemplated our later wholesale abandonment of this pursuit. As John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It is, in fact, impossible to construct a government which can compel virtue and excellence in its citizens. The founders instead settled for one which would permit such a pursuit, and which would, in permitting, encourage it.

Thomas Paine wrote, "Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices." But the mainest vice restrained by America's foundational document is the abuse of power. The founders believed, it seems, that once power has been restrained, men will naturally pursue virtue, excellence, continual improvement of themselves and their society.

This is not to say "all men". They left us free, of course, to legislate as necessary to maintain law and order, not at all anticipating that the liberty they bequeathed to us would be perverted into license of all things regardless of their detriment, let alone provide the basis for demanding tolerance and respect for such uselessness and wickedness.

No, I see no reason to think the First Amendment's protections of religion and speech were established to safeguard false religions and verbal gibberish. That they are protected is merely incidental to the safeguarding of Christianity and productive discourse, as both of these are necessary to that pursuit of "happiness" to which Plato referred: virtuous character.