By David Hegg
During the past political season, it was common to hear the various candidates shout that their opponent threatened democracy and was ready to take away our freedoms. The more this theme was repeated, the more I wondered, “What do we mean by freedom?”
Our founding fathers answered this question by creating a nation of laws meant to define and protect our unalienable rights and the freedoms that flow from those rights.
There are many examples of how our system of laws protects us from the hurtful and often criminal activities of those who prey on us. For example, as citizens, we understand the law protects our freedom from negative things such as physical harm, the illegal taking of our possessions, and, certainly, from unlawful government overreach. Our freedom as individuals is also protected from illegal discrimination due to who we are, what we look like, and even how we see the world. I might be tempted to continue listing how our legal system protects our individual and professional freedoms, but I’ll stop since I never went to law school!
But what happens when freedoms collide? Let me set out an example.
For instance, freedom from unlawful discrimination is grounded in the truth that people differ. We differ ethnically and ideologically. We differ in terms of gender, age, experience, and, if we’re honest, in many more ways. While we agree that these differences must not bring about unlawful discrimination, the question goes even further. Do we have the right to be free from having our feelings hurt? And is it even rational to believe that, in our “melting pot” country, there can ever be a time when we all think, act, and believe in lockstep?
I have long wondered about the new concept of being “triggered.” This is the new term for “what you said just hurt my feelings, and you should be punished, not only for what you said but also for the thoughts and beliefs behind what you’re saying.”
Here, we have the collision of actual freedom — freedom of speech — and a manufactured, false freedom from ever having my feelings hurt.
But is this idea of freedom rational? Must it be that I, as a pastor who speaks and teaches for a living and as a columnist who opines weekly, must never be confronted, disagreed with, and demeaned? Is there some natural law or legislative interest in ensuring people always agree with me, like me, and always relate to me in complementary ways, and never hurt my feelings? And is it rational to believe that, in a country built on freedom of speech, it is also mandatory that one’s free speech must never hurt someone’s feelings? The answer to all these questions is a hard no!
The raw truth is this: Freedom of speech is the tangible fruit that falls from the tree of our freedom of conscience. As rational beings, we are free to think for ourselves, craft our beliefs and convictions, and use them to form an ethical system and personal worldview. We can declare it if we do not break the laws that protect another person’s safety, business, or reputation. And, while not illegal, it is also unwise, unloving, and quite foolish to express thoughts, opinions, and even criticism in demeaning, dehumanizing ways. If you’re trying to convince someone of your perspective, throwing barbed, sharp-edged insults can’t be the A plan.
Here’s my suggestion. Toughen up, America! As the old Lynn Anderson song declared, “I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden; along with the sunshine there’s gotta be a little rain sometime; When you take, you gotta give, so live and let live …”
I mean it! If we’re to solve the immense challenges facing us as individuals, families, and a society, we’ll need to stop being sniveling, self-centered narcissists. Life is tough, and feelings-based ideologies will never carry us forward to better times in better ways.
We must learn how to listen to, put up with, understand, and rationally respond to those around us who think differently. This doesn’t mean the truth is flexible or that every idea has merit. It isn’t, and they don’t.
But it does mean we must re-learn tolerance, a concept that presupposes differences. Tolerance means not letting another person’s intolerance reduce you to anger and hatred. Tolerance doesn’t equate to agreement, but it does demonstrate maturity even as it communicates honor to a fellow human being, whether they deserve it in your opinion or not.
So, as we start 2025, let’s use our freedoms to the fullest while being equally engaged in protecting the freedoms of others traveling the road with us. I may disagree with what you believe and proclaim, but I’ll argue for your freedom to do both. Let’s make it a Happy New Year!
Local resident David Hegg is senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church. “Ethically Speaking” appears Sundays.