Originally posted from 08-24-03 to 08-31-03
I'm Right; You're Wrong
by Lady Liberty

Recently I wrote an essay that basically tried to make the point that, in a truly free state, what somebody else believes or says or does is none of my business as long as it doesn't infringe on my own rights. Accordingly, I took to task a certain group of homosexuals who engaged in singularly inappropriate behavior in front of children during "Gay Days" at Disney World. It was my contention that such behavior - normally not my business - became my business by virtue of such an intrusively public display. Further, I implied that the infringement of rights occurred when such actions harmed the innocence of those children who bore witness.

In response to the essay in question, I received an e-mail from a self-proclaimed Christian man who castigated me for suggesting that homosexuality could be anything less than evil under any circumstance. Because I understand that freedom of religion applies even to those with whom we disagree, I merely pointed out to him that not everyone - even other Christians - goes along with his definititions. I added that he certainly had every right to believe as he does and to live accordingly. He was quick to respond that there are moral absolutes and that homosexuality is a "choice" to exercise an "evil perversion".

By definition, religions codify a code of morality for followers. Within those codes, there are, indeed, absolutes. The problem is that absolutes can differ from faith to faith. Where sexuality is concerned, Playboy magazine did a fine job of comparing the major religions and their viewpoint on certain aspects of sexual behavior in its June, 2003 issue. In the case of homosexuality, it's interesting to note some significant differences between religions. For example, Buddhists aren't as stuck on the topic as are some other religions, but there's controversy as to whether or not Buddha would have permitted gay followers, and the Dalai Lama said in a visit to San Francisco that gay sex is "generally considered sexual misconduct". Hindus, on the other hand, generally accept homosexuality and call gay men "the third sex". A section of the Kama Sutra actually focuses on homosexual activity and includes helpful advice to lesbians concerning which vegetables make the best sex "toys". Pagans don't judge sexual orientation one way or the other, believing that "as ye harm none" all is acceptable.

Christians and Jews typically consider homosexuality to be Biblically prohibited. There are, however, exceptions (most recently and publicly the Episcopalian church). And a 1997 pastoral letter written by US Catholic bishops says that "homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose." Actually acting on that orientation by engaging in homosexual sex, however, is still officially considered sinful by Catholics.

My erstwhile correspondant, however, didn't want to hear any of that. Homosexuality is Biblically condemned, he said, and he proceded to quote any number of Bible verses to prove his point. He told me that if I thought there was any possibility that homosexuality was a natural phenomenon, I was uneducated (he doubtless considers the US Catholic bishops to be singularly ignorant as well, and probably not proper Christians, either, seeing as how they disagree with him). I actually have a fairly broad and coherent knowledge of biology, and I am aware that homosexuality is a well known natural phenomenon which occurs readily in many species, including man. But my e-mail discussion wasn't one of biology. It wasn't even one of morality. It was, rather, one of liberty.

As religions codify morality for followers, so was the Constitution and Bill of Rights intended to codify liberty in the United States. The documents are relatively short and easily understood, even in the archaic language of the times (certainly they're easier to understand and interpret than are the various holy books of religions, but, to be fair, they address fewer specific matters). Religion was singled out for protection in the First Amendment, which states in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What that, in a nutshell, means in the context of the topic at hand is this: Exercise your own beliefs as you see fit, but don't expect anybody to make any laws to force other people to conform to your beliefs. And if somebody tries, those laws will be struck down as being unconstitutional. Implied as well is the notion of equality under the law for those of all religious persuasions. The government is prohibited from favoring one religion over another, and that ensures that those of all faiths - or no faith - shall be treated equally when laws are made and enforced.

Although there are people out there with whom I disagree - and certainly the man with whom this particular e-mail exchange took place is one of them - it never occurred to me before, during, or after a discussion that laws should be changed to force him in any way to depart from his beliefs. That's why I was at such a loss when he made clear that everyone should have to live according to his own morality, a morality he considered to be the only acceptable one. In our final exchange, he told me in no uncertain terms that I was condemned to hell, and that by claiming other moral codes were equally acceptable, was leading others astray as well.

I should point out that never once did I tell him my own moral viewpoint on homosexuality or any other topic. We never discussed my own religious beliefs. I merely insisted that others adhered to different religious belief systems than he did and that those beliefs deserved the same respect he expected for his own. In fact, the only stance on which I remained adamant was that freedom isn't truly freedom unless it applies to those with whom you disagree. For that, I was told I was "irresponsible" and "wicked beyond understanding".

After considering our conversation over the course of the last two weeks, I've reached the conclusion that I do have at least one moral absolute of my own, and that is this: anyone who professes to love liberty but would deny it to others who have harmed no one is neither an advocate for freedom nor a particularly kind human being. While I wouldn't deny anyone the right to feel one way or another, or to believe one way or another, I find it reprehensible that someone would be perfectly happy to deny me, or anyone else who didn't toe their own narrow line, our own inalienable and "endowed by the Creator" rights.

I discussed the conversation and my conclusions with a good friend of mine before I wrote this column. He happens to practice the Wiccan religion. I don't agree with him, either. But he is both loving enough in his faith and strong enough in his stand for freedom to not give a damn. And that's all any truly free man - or woman - could want.

Originally posted from 04-06-03 to 04-13-03
Talk to Me!
by Lady Liberty

The war in Iraq has served to polarize not just those for and against the military action, but has separated out some interesting examples of what is - and what is not - considered free speech. Few debate the right of anti-war demonstrators to protest or of those who support our troops to stage their own rallies. But some widely reported instances also involving First Amendment rights have made some believe that lines have been crossed, and others to think those same lines have at least been blurred. To me, the difference between what is and what is not free speech is crystal clear because it's all free speech. But some of it can be negative consequences, both within and without the law.

It's a simplistic example, but one that bears repeating since so many seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand: Is it an act of free speech to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Some would have you believe it is not. They are wrong. You can shout any word in any venue you choose. You may have to deal with some consequences for your outburst, however, for what is a crime is incitement to panic, and that's why those who dare exercise their right to free speech in such a manner see themselves under arrest.

There are those who thought the incitement to anger over some different publicly spoken words deserved similar retribution. A Columbia University professor said, quite publicly, that he hoped US forces in Iraq would be defeated, and that he wanted to see "a million Mogadishus (alluding, of course, to the incident in Somalia where 18 US soldiers died and many more were wounded).Those words have caused an uproar that has reached the halls of congress. In fact, the New York Post has reported that more than 100 Republican lawmakers have joined together to demand the professor be fired for his remarks. The school's president says he is "appalled" by the professor's pronouncement, but that, because it was made on his own time and not in a classroom, no action will be taken against him.

I, too, consider Nicholas De Genova's comments to be appalling. If he had uttered them in class before a captive audience of students, I'd gladly jump on the bandwagon in favor of his resignation or termination. But De Genova has every right to speak his mind on his own time. Finding his words disagreeable or offensive - and many do, including me - merely illustrates the very rationale behind the protections offered by the First Amendment. Popular speech doesn't need any defense. Some say that, free speech aside, De Genova's pronouncement shows poor judgment, and they infer that this could reflect on his efficacy as a teacher. Perhaps. But that has nothing to do with his right to exhibit that poor judgment as publicly as he likes where sharing his opinions is concerned.

Another now infamous incident involves the First Amendment as it protects both free speech and freedom of the press. Reporter Peter Arnett ignited a firestorm when he was interviewed on Iraqi television and criticized the war effort as well as commented that reporting on the civilian casualties in Iraq was helping the anti-war effort. He was subsequently fired by NBC news for "anti-American bias". Cybercast News Service published an article saying his dismissal came as no surprise to experts, though NBC's initial defense of his remarks did. Arnett, who has since been hired by an anti-war publication based in London, claims those on the "right wing" were out to get him, and he's been largely unapologetic.

Though his words were at least as reprehensible as De Genova's, Arnett's circumstances differ greatly in several key ways. First, he was allegedly in Iraq to report the news. Although unethical and biased reporting is rampant throughout most major media outlets, that doesn't excuse Arnett, especially since his bias was extraordinarily overt by any standard. Secondly - and most importantly - his words were uttered in the land of the enemy and on the enemy's own communications network. It's obvious that Arnett not only failed to support the US in a time of war, but that he actively provided aid and comfort to the enemy as well. Each of these points is a hallmark of the constitutionally defined crime of treason. So were Arnett's reports from Iraq exercises of the freedom of the press? Sure. But Arnett's publicly demonstrated bias meant he couldn't do the job he was supposed to do, so his termination was clearly warranted. Were his remarks an example of free speech? Yes. But just as in the crowded theatre scenario, there should be consequences. It is my personal belief that those consequences should see Arnett charged with and tried for treason.

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks also made comments on foreign soil that disparaged the war effort, at least indirectly. But she spoke in London, which is in the heart of allied territory, and she expressed criticism of President Bush, not support for Iraq. Country music fans are, as a group, a patriotic bunch. Natalie Maines' comments caused outrage sufficient that frequent complaints took Dixie Chicks songs off the play list of some radio stations, and demonstrations were staged where Chicks' CDs were trashed or destroyed. Maines has since issued a lukewarm apology, but it wasn't enough to keep a current Dixie Chicks hit song from dropping like a stone down the music charts.

In an interview with The Nashville Tennessean, former Vice President Al Gore said he thought that free speech was being threatened because the Dixie Chicks "risked economic retaliation" because of the reaction to Maines' comments. With that, Gore says that those who oppose the viewpoints of others exhibit "a lack of tolerance", and he seems to suggest that the rights of free speech and assembly for those who are in disagreement are less important than the rights of the Dixie Chicks to get richer. Yet the entire notion of free speech without censorship involves the idea that you can say whatever you want, but I can censor myself by not listening if I don't want to. Say what you like, Natalie Maines. Or, as was reported April 1, use a Pearl Jam concert as your soapbox to impale and stomp on a mask of George W. Bush, Eddie Vedder. But don't be offended if my own offense means I won't buy your CDs or your concert tickets.

In Fieldsboro, New Jersey, city officials have officially decreed that there be no display of yellow ribbons on municipal property. Fieldsboro isn't the first city to make such a determination, but protests there have been out of proportion to its small size (just over 500 residents). WorldNetDaily printed a story about the protests which boasted about a hundred marchers who moved down the street tacking yellow ribbons to trees and buildings. In other places where ribbon displays have been banned, people have protested that their free speech rights are being abrogated. Town officials have responded by saying if they permit one display, all other displays will also have to be allowed.

It might be true that a religious display or a sign recognizing some organization or another would engender demands for equal time from other groups. But the yellow ribbons in this case are in support of an actual federal government function. If cities fly American flags on municipal property - and they do - yellow ribbons supporting the coalition troops aren't much different. On those grounds, any city should be able to stave off subsequent demands for any other color of ribbon for any non-government sanctioned event with ease. Yellow ribbons don't represent one group or mind set. They represent all of us, as does the flag. After all, even the most vociferous anti-war advocates must admit they care for the safe return of the men and women fighting in Operation Iraqi Freedom!

It could be that you agree with everything I've said here. Or that you disagree with some of it or all of it. Perhaps you'd like to bring my attention to something I've not considered. Or maybe you just like to write complimentary - or nasty - e-mails. Whatever position you hold, your comments are welcome here. Unlike some people these days, I still believe in the right to free speech. And I'm mature enough to accept whatever the consequences may be for my exercise of it.