Part of the Christian worldview includes that we wish the whole world to be Christian, but importantly we wish for the world (each individual) to come to that conversion on their own. This can occur with help, but not under duress or force or it is meaningless.
On that note, one cannot legislate belief or forced participation in a religion (at least the Christian religion) or it has no foundation and is meaningless.
On the other hand, a society stained by sin (or if you like because of human nature) cannot when left to anarchy, function.
Therefore a compromise is struck. We make crimes out of acts against persons and property with the public good in mind.
In a free nation, part of maintaining and promoting the public good is maintaining a culture that allows for people to come to their own beliefs on all matters, not just religion, and perhaps the most important bit of law ever written is the first amendment of the United States Constitution. (Footnote 1).
(Some things here are listed as footnotes at the bottom of this blog entry. I put them down there so you don't have to read through everything if you don't want too.)
Today we're talking about free speech. It's listed second, but without it none of the other freedoms would be particularly relevant.
Recently the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (Snyder vs. Phelps) in favors of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church against the father of a slain solider that the WBC had the right to protest when and where they did and that funeral protests are pretty much legit. (Footnote 2)
I think it goes without saying that almost all people of almost all faiths (or none) can get together in morally condemning the actions of the WBC. Showing up at the funeral of an 26-yr old soldier who died in the service of his country to assault his sexuality without grounds, claim he is in hell, and express support for his killers must be terribly traumatic to the family.
But here's the thing my friends, the WBC and it's nutty views are entitled by law to have them and share them. They notify law enforcement in advance, the observe existing laws, the do not (physically) incite violence and do not start altercations. Legally speaking, they are peaceful demonstrators and they are exercising the rights that our soldiers fight and often die for.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion:
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
And he's right. The WBC is crazy to you and me, but in a lot of ways my beliefs are crazy to an atheist. The north's views on abolition of slavery sounded crazy to the south and Scientology sounds crazy to everyone.
But whether right or wrong the freedom speech and exercise thereof is one of our most treasured rights and we should not give that up even if it becomes the source of great pain.
I hope the WBC one day realizes they're probably evil, but I hope no one ever tries to stop them from exercising their rights as Americans. The freedom of speech is the main essential element in a free culture and it is needed in the secular and religious world because without it, no beliefs or views or ideas could be properly explained, debated and accepted.
-------------
Footnotes
from online supreme court documentsFootnote 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Footnote 2: The funeral was, conducted at St. John's Catholic Church in Westminster, Maryland. Defendants' acts included picketing as members of the Westboro Baptist Church and carrying signs that Defendants contend simply expressed their religious 570*570 points of view. The signs expressed general points of view such as "America is doomed" and "God hates America." However, the signs also expressed more particularized messages, to wit: "You are going to hell," "God hates you," "Thank God for dead soldiers," and "Semper fi fags." Defendants' acts also included posting an "epic" entitled "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder" on the church's website, www.godhatesfags.com, in the weeks following the funeral. The publication on the church's website of "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder" expressed Defendants' view that Lance Cpl. Snyder had been "raised for the devil" and "taught to defy God." It was undisputed at trial that Defendants had never met Matthew Snyder or any members of his family.
2b: As an initial matter, Defendants have repeatedly argued that their actions were entitled to absolute First Amendment protection. (See, e.g., pro se Defs.' Mem. Supp. Post-trial Mots. 2; Church Defs.' Mem. Supp. Post-trial Mots. 5.) Their defense implicates both the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
2c: (Blogger: The plaintiff's case is not so simply put but it claims severe and significant injury, invasion of privacy and civil conspiracy.)
Of course I agree with your overall point. There's a reason these rights are non-negotiable. An attack on the rights of even the smallest (and most deserving) minority, is an attack on the rights of us all. It's not for WBC's benefit that we act, but our own.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have to point out that your concept of civil laws as a "compromise" between anarchy on one hand and forced participation in religion on the other, couldn't be more wrong. Religious codes have never been seen as an alternative to civil law (at least in the west).
Even when manditory participation in a particular religion was practiced (pre US Revolution), civil law was a quite different matter. Having a secular system of laws and justice, enforced by a secular authority was vitally important for maintaining a functional society. Church and state have different priorities. The church is concerned with producing people who are morally good. The state is merely concerned with keeping people productive, and allowing them to cohabitate and work together without slitting each others throats.
I agree. I wasn't trying to say it was a compromise between forced religion and civil law, I just didn't differentiate well.
ReplyDeleteI was making two separate points. First I was using faith as an example to show where freedom of belief is a key element.
Then I said in society we can't function without laws but admittedly I didn't include a transition.
In the US we have neither total freedom, nor forced belief in anything, a situation that can only be maintained with the freedom of speech.
To wrap this ramble up, I was trying to say you can't legislate morality, but the allowance of free speech still allows the moral and unmoral alike to push their agendas.
Its interesting that, as of 2007, WBC had only 71 members, most of whom are part of the extended family of the founder, Fred Phelps. Its comforting to know that such lunacy is not wide spread.
ReplyDeleteI remembered I posted on your facebook about this
ReplyDeleteyou told me i was too off topic
anyways
these people spread ideas that are harmful and bad ideas
this should be seen as an attack on the people of the united states, they should be tried for treason agianst the nation
freedom of speach and freedom of religion are lies that were created by British FreeMasons
reject the heresy
Sullo I never know if you're kidding or not. I could just as easily see you defend free speech as support the inquisition so let me know before I respond.
ReplyDelete