The vandalism to Shaun Treat’s door is an outrage. Even if one doesn’t agree with the views that were expressed on the door, what gives the right for any person to tear down the expression of another?
Last week, I wrote a column about taking “under God” out of the pledge. One reader wrote to me telling me “to shut my ears” if I didn’t like it, though I’m not entirely sure how that action is achieved.
The difference between Shaun Treat’s door and “under God” is one is an individual expressing his views and the other is government expressing its, and that was the point of my article.
Actions can be controlled by a government and beliefs should never be. I never intended for religion to be controlled.
Rather, I felt, like Jonathan Edwards before me, religion is too precious for government to ever be involved in the matter. Furthermore, the Bible may even restrict Christians from pledging their allegiance to anything but God, so putting God in the pledge may even be against Christian teaching.
Shaun Treat’s door is a totally different matter-individual expression. Because someone, let’s call him Mr. Brownshirt, didn’t like what Treat was expressing, they tore it down.
What kind of person is this? Why couldn’t he just ignore someone’s viewpoints instead of destroying it? Did he think he was being patriotic?
Surely, this person must realize the soldiers he thought he was protecting were the very people who protect Shaun Treat’s right to express his ideas. Nothing is more patriotic than expressing one’s own beliefs. No amount of flag waving will ever show more love of a democratic country than criticizing the government that runs it.
What if the government regularly participated in what Mr. Brownshirt did? Nazi Germany?
Havoc can only result when people act in the name of what they think patriotism is.
People often criticize my writing in the Reveille.
Horror of all horrors, I’m a liberal, many write, as if being a liberal is more of a character flaw than being an ax murderer.
The irony is, of course, that I’m not a liberal at all-I’m a libertarian, or a Jeffersonian, or republican with a little r.
Yet, people read what I have to say, and since they don’t like it or don’t understand it, put me into some vilified category, rather than possibly considering perhaps government shouldn’t involve itself in religion.
Just being open minded could bring so much enlightenment and end so much intolerance, from all sides of the political spectrum.
The best and worst thing about free speech is it allows people to say things we don’t like. It reminds me of a quote from Holocaust survivor Martin Niemoller:
“They came for the Communists, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Communist; They came for the Socialists, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Socialist; They came for the labor leaders, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a labor leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn’t object – For I wasn’t a Jew; Then they came for me – And there was no one left to object.”
There’s a bumper sticker on the Reveille editor’s door that reads, “Talk is cheap. Free speech isn’t.”
How expensive free speech can be-if we want to be able to express our own views, shouldn’t we let others express theirs?