I read a letter-to-the-editor in the Columbus Dispatch today, entitled, "Freedom too much for some to handle." The main point the writer was trying to make can be summed up in one line he uttered, which was that, "Some people don't actually want to be free."
Being "free" is both partially wonderful and partially delusional. It's partially wonderful, because it's nice to know I can express my opinions through writing or when out in the public, or that I can practice a religion of my choosing without fear of government persecution. However, it's partially delusional, because the only time a person will be 100% "free" is at death. From birth until death, there will always be exceptions and limits to each and every freedom.
Based on some of the language the writer of this letter-to-the-editor used, I have to assume he's a rather staunch conservative ("some people just want free stuff"). So, as unfair as it might be to this individual, I'm going to lump him in with other modern-day conservatives to try and prove a point. If he and other such individuals wanted to point fingers at the NSA for invading our privacy and stripping us of some liberties we had possessed previously, I wouldn't be able to debate that. However, considering such NSA expansions started post-9/11 during the George W. Bush years, this typically isn't the route they travel with such arguments. No, they generally go one of the following routes:
1) Religious persecution for being Christian - The Phil Robertson-Duck Dynasty controversy is a prime example of this. Many die-hard conservative evangelicals felt that by A&E suspending Robertson for his anti-gay commentary, A&E was waging a war against Christians - that it was stripping them of their 1st Amendment rights. What they failed to understand is the fact that the government didn't come after Robertson for his comments. He was free to say what he said. However, while he was free to express himself without fear of government persecution, it was no guarantee that his boss would act similarly. A&E's decision was a business and image decision. It had absolutely nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights and everything to do with ratings, money, and preventing a severe backlash. If they don't believe me, I dare them to speak up to their boss with what's really on their minds when angry and see how he/she responds. I highly doubt the it's-my-1st-Amendment-right line is going to suffice.
2) Persecution of the white man - Through Affirmative-Action, food stamps, etc., many such individuals seriously feel like they're not getting a fair break. They honestly feel like women and minorities have more rights than them. This perspective is bass ackwards, of course. The only reason more minorities and women receive such benefits is because they've been without certain freedoms many white men had possessed long before them, and they've been trying to play catch-up ever since. These benefits attempt to level the playing field a bit more, so that more people can get by in life - not to provide such individuals with more "freedoms."
3) Unborn babies - When it comes to abortion, many pro-lifers speak for the unborn fetus, in claiming he or she should have just as many rights as their mother. However, in saying and believing this, it ironically strips the rights away from that living mother, at the expense of an unborn fetus.
4) Corporations - "Corporations are people, my friend..." No, I'm sorry - they're not. Many right-wingers believe that regulating corporations is tyranny - is stripping us of our freedoms. However, without regulations, we wind up in a recession and having chemical spills where people are deprived from water for several days. Through less corporate regulations, the power corporations hold over people expands, and through that, further limits our freedoms.
5) Guns - Wayne LaPierre and the like would seem to be giddy if every baby was born with a gun in hand. However, with so many school shootings and the like occurring nationwide, we'd be remiss to think we weren't in need of stricter gun laws. This doesn't mean people will be stripped of their guns. That's just paranoia talking. When vision, written, and driving tests were required for a license, was that the government's way of stripping us of our vehicles? Eh, no. However, did it result in fewer blind, drunk, high, and crazy drivers from endangering fellow citizens while in their vehicles? Yes. The next time they see a blind person with cane in one hand, a gun in the other, and they feel completely safe, then we can talk...
6) Obamacare - We all must buy another kind of insurance or we'll get penalized less than $100! Oh no! ::fills out an application:: What's this? 27 different options? Well, I'll be darned...
Freedom is partially wonderful and partially delusional. Until death, we'll never be 100% "free." There will always be certain limits and exceptions depending on the time, the place, and our company. Where liberals and conservatives tend to butt heads on the concept of freedom is that liberals tend to want an equal amount of freedom for everyone, whereas conservatives tend to believe that in order to achieve this, their freedoms must be stripped from them. However, just because a gay couple is legally allowed to marry doesn't negate heterosexual marriages. Just because a group of Muslims is legally allowed to build and worship in Mosques doesn't refute the fact that a similar group of Christians can build and worship in a church. When women were granted the right to vote, this didn't strip that very right from men. Women are not asking for more rights than men. Blacks and Latinos are not asking for more rights than whites. Homosexuals are not asking for more rights than heterosexuals. Muslims are not asking for more rights than Christians. They're all simply asking for equal rights, and to many staunch conservatives, the thought of granting equal freedoms to those outside their traditional mindset is haunting.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/01/15/1-freedom-too-much-for-some-to-handle.html
Being "free" is both partially wonderful and partially delusional. It's partially wonderful, because it's nice to know I can express my opinions through writing or when out in the public, or that I can practice a religion of my choosing without fear of government persecution. However, it's partially delusional, because the only time a person will be 100% "free" is at death. From birth until death, there will always be exceptions and limits to each and every freedom.
Based on some of the language the writer of this letter-to-the-editor used, I have to assume he's a rather staunch conservative ("some people just want free stuff"). So, as unfair as it might be to this individual, I'm going to lump him in with other modern-day conservatives to try and prove a point. If he and other such individuals wanted to point fingers at the NSA for invading our privacy and stripping us of some liberties we had possessed previously, I wouldn't be able to debate that. However, considering such NSA expansions started post-9/11 during the George W. Bush years, this typically isn't the route they travel with such arguments. No, they generally go one of the following routes:
1) Religious persecution for being Christian - The Phil Robertson-Duck Dynasty controversy is a prime example of this. Many die-hard conservative evangelicals felt that by A&E suspending Robertson for his anti-gay commentary, A&E was waging a war against Christians - that it was stripping them of their 1st Amendment rights. What they failed to understand is the fact that the government didn't come after Robertson for his comments. He was free to say what he said. However, while he was free to express himself without fear of government persecution, it was no guarantee that his boss would act similarly. A&E's decision was a business and image decision. It had absolutely nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights and everything to do with ratings, money, and preventing a severe backlash. If they don't believe me, I dare them to speak up to their boss with what's really on their minds when angry and see how he/she responds. I highly doubt the it's-my-1st-Amendment-right line is going to suffice.
2) Persecution of the white man - Through Affirmative-Action, food stamps, etc., many such individuals seriously feel like they're not getting a fair break. They honestly feel like women and minorities have more rights than them. This perspective is bass ackwards, of course. The only reason more minorities and women receive such benefits is because they've been without certain freedoms many white men had possessed long before them, and they've been trying to play catch-up ever since. These benefits attempt to level the playing field a bit more, so that more people can get by in life - not to provide such individuals with more "freedoms."
3) Unborn babies - When it comes to abortion, many pro-lifers speak for the unborn fetus, in claiming he or she should have just as many rights as their mother. However, in saying and believing this, it ironically strips the rights away from that living mother, at the expense of an unborn fetus.
4) Corporations - "Corporations are people, my friend..." No, I'm sorry - they're not. Many right-wingers believe that regulating corporations is tyranny - is stripping us of our freedoms. However, without regulations, we wind up in a recession and having chemical spills where people are deprived from water for several days. Through less corporate regulations, the power corporations hold over people expands, and through that, further limits our freedoms.
5) Guns - Wayne LaPierre and the like would seem to be giddy if every baby was born with a gun in hand. However, with so many school shootings and the like occurring nationwide, we'd be remiss to think we weren't in need of stricter gun laws. This doesn't mean people will be stripped of their guns. That's just paranoia talking. When vision, written, and driving tests were required for a license, was that the government's way of stripping us of our vehicles? Eh, no. However, did it result in fewer blind, drunk, high, and crazy drivers from endangering fellow citizens while in their vehicles? Yes. The next time they see a blind person with cane in one hand, a gun in the other, and they feel completely safe, then we can talk...
6) Obamacare - We all must buy another kind of insurance or we'll get penalized less than $100! Oh no! ::fills out an application:: What's this? 27 different options? Well, I'll be darned...
Freedom is partially wonderful and partially delusional. Until death, we'll never be 100% "free." There will always be certain limits and exceptions depending on the time, the place, and our company. Where liberals and conservatives tend to butt heads on the concept of freedom is that liberals tend to want an equal amount of freedom for everyone, whereas conservatives tend to believe that in order to achieve this, their freedoms must be stripped from them. However, just because a gay couple is legally allowed to marry doesn't negate heterosexual marriages. Just because a group of Muslims is legally allowed to build and worship in Mosques doesn't refute the fact that a similar group of Christians can build and worship in a church. When women were granted the right to vote, this didn't strip that very right from men. Women are not asking for more rights than men. Blacks and Latinos are not asking for more rights than whites. Homosexuals are not asking for more rights than heterosexuals. Muslims are not asking for more rights than Christians. They're all simply asking for equal rights, and to many staunch conservatives, the thought of granting equal freedoms to those outside their traditional mindset is haunting.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/01/15/1-freedom-too-much-for-some-to-handle.html
Comments
Post a Comment