The Essays of Edward L. Wier

Bound for Freedom

I confess outright the motivation to write these words rises more from emotion than thought, from sentiment as opposed to logic. This is not to say that I have not given these thoughts careful consideration. Both are important. Passions drive ideas. But as I hear more and more news reports of conflict involving personal expression, especially religious, I have begun to notice a strange, awkward fear lurking within. I feel censored.

I am being forced into a corner of careful consideration. I'm not saying being impolite is acceptable behavior. But I am saying that what is being considered impolite is disturbing me greatly. I feel like some sort of ideological criminal because I believe in historical Christianity. Like it or not, my religion requires that I think some other ways of thinking, in myself and others, regardless of the passion and sincerity supporting them, are just plain mistaken. But I welcome differing thought and I'd rather feel the heat of a hotbed of disagreement than the bland, sickening, warm haze of indifferent tolerance.

Furthermore, if tolerance and respect are the handmaids of civilized society, why do I sense a pervasive intolerance? Why do I feel a vague, annoying shame because I have opinions which assume others to be wrong? When did it become disrespectful to disagree with another's beliefs? Who can tolerate this?

Let me furthermore say that tolerance, regardless of it's humble facade, assumes a position of superiority. If I tolerate you than you are the one who needs tolerating, not me. As Wendall Wilkie stated, "No man has a right in America to treat any other man tolerantly, for tolerance is the assumption of superiority." If I allow you the freedom to express your ideas than I am the morally superior person. After all, I'm accommodating you. Strong conviction, however, is taking on an air of fascism. Perhaps G.K. Chesterson was right when he said, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man with no convictions." What self-respecting individual wants to be tolerated?

And what, may I ask, is so horrible about religious groups proselytizing? Our entire capitalist society is built on proselytizing in some form. Every political or advertising campaign is a form of propaganda. Democrats, Republicans, automobile and phone companies, minority rights and environmental groups all want to convert us. They want to change they way we think and what we do. But no one seems to get in a furor of civilized disgust about it. But try to post the Ten Commandments in a school and you are symbolically thumbing your nose at everyone and anyone who doesn't recognize them as authoritative. If you criticize someone's ideas or beliefs, by simply promoting your own, and you instantly become associated with all the religious bigotry of recorded history. (Who would have thought the Spanish Inquisition would get so much use?)

But I have no difficulty whatsoever with a Buddhist congresswoman standing up and condemning a bill because of her religious convictions. That's the way it should be. Neutrality is a myth. People run churches, schools, businesses, and governments. And people have beliefs. But when too much consideration is given to the effect, convictions loose their edge and, in my opinion, the free market of thought suffers. I want to hear fresh ideas from the sharp minds of politicians, ministers, philosophers and statesmen...persons, even if it offends me. I don't want to hear regurgitated, blunted words diluted by the fear of offense, inappropriateness, or minority repercussion.

Another encroaching idea in this fog is that it's bad to have enemies, to be disliked, or not accepted. Tennyson said, "He makes no friend who never made a foe." Or again, as Baltasar Gracian said, "A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends." Ben Franklin said, "A man is defined more by his enemies than his friends." But this wisdom has a strange air of uselessness in the age of tolerance where being 'well-liked' is considered more valuable than taking a stand along with the consequences. How do we explain Bill Clinton's rise in popularity with the fall of his morality?

Is it any wonder that most people appear bored with political campaigns? We already know what they are going to say. i.e. something we want to hear, something we like. Again, I'm not saying that being a disagreeable misfit has some sort of innate virtue. But I am saying that the desire to be agreeable, accepted, and non-offensive is producing an avalanche of bland leaders in all areas. It’s blunting the edge. It's true that a blunt edge can't hurt you, but it also can't cut out your cancer. Read some speeches of Theodore Roosevelt and compare them with those of contemporary politicians and tell me I'm wrong.

It's time we grew up. It's time we stopped tattling to the press every time we don't like something someone says. If God had been as polite as we are, He may never have spoken to us. Just as a couple can be legally married yet emotionally divorced, I believe our freedom of speech and religion are leaning dangerously towards distant civil ideals. The idea of not offending anyone should offend all good people everywhere. I mean no offense but if it occurs, I welcome being both the giver or receiver. It's time we paid some attention to the intellectual environment.