(s) – I Don’t want “Freedom of Religion”

…I want to require everyone to be Catholic. That way, if people behave badly, they are behaving contrary to some discrete set of values. Modernity tends to excuse bad behavior as a unique and individual “lived experience”, and most justice is effectuated by appealing to some pantheon of higher ideals like being on the right side of history or something something FREEDOM.

When I am a hypocrite, it means I am behaving in a way that hurts me, hurts society, and hurts God. When your average modern is a hypocrite, it necessarily means that they are behaving in a way that is beneficial to society, since their core values are unmoored by considerations of good or God.

AMDG

(Zippy made a comment somewhere like this, I haven’t been able to find it. If you can, please let me know and I will give him proper credit for inspiring this line of thought.)

CXLIII – More On Censorship

Background: On Censorship, On Rights.

---

The President has signed an executive order with the intent of revoking “Section 230” protections for social media companies. Section 230 says that organizations that give a platform to, but do not editorialize, users content, are exempt from publisher rules.

There are two ways this could go.

“Social Media Should Be A Free Speech Platform!”

Ok! Lets commit to it, then. Have your Free Speech! We know that Free Speech really means Government Sanctioned Speech, so instead of Jack Dorsey censoring your tweets, it’s the government. That’s all that means: I don’t want a private corporation censoring me, I want the government to censor me. And what will happen when someone whose name is not Trump enters the office? How long do you think to expect to maintain your free speech when they change the rules of what is considered protected speech?

“The Government Should Not Interfere With Private Corporations!”

Ok! Then Twitter is going to censor you and there’s nothing you can do about it. Don’t like it? Find a new platform! Terms of Use for using a private organizations product means accepting whatever changes they make to that product, unless you vote with your feet. It’s inherently nonsensical to complain about twitter, on twitter. Twitter will let you complain as much as you like as long as you do it using their tool.

“But Scoot, There’s A Real Problem! Someone Should Do Something!”

Yes, someone should. But not Jack Dorsey, and not President Trump. If you do not like how a product you don’t pay for is being used, then don’t use that product. “But I want to use the product!” Ok! Then you get what you pay for.

CX – Excursus on Censorship

Inspired by a series of posts by fellow blogger, Wood, who is a must-follow for pithy insights into Catholic and political life. See Here, Here, and Here

---

Censorship has the common understanding as “suppression of speech”. Here in the United States, speech is considered a right, which I have argued is a fallacious analogy to Natural Law. Perfect Free Speech is the idea that anyone can say anything; Perfect Censorship is the idea that no one can say anything. These are opposite ends of a continuum.

Free Speech is certainly not perfect in American society. While the Overton window of permissible speech is growing daily, it doesn’t include everything. You can’t shout bomb threats in an airport, or shout “fire!” in a crowded theater. These things are speech, but disallowed speech because they cause panic, and thus harm. It’s this small nugget that has drawn the fascination of modern leftists, that harmful speech is disallowed. A right-thinking conservative might say that there is a difference, and banning things that leftists consider ‘hate speech’ is actually censorship. Leftists would rebut that shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater is not censorship because of the harmful nature of the speech, therefore the harmful nature of other speech is validly prohibited.

So what about censorship? Censorship is the suppression of speech, specifically in modern usage it’s the suppression of speech which ought to be allowed. This is why leftists and rightists view it differently: when people agree on suppressing speech, it’s legal prudence. When people disagree, one will always argue it is censorship. So in the example above, when the rightist argues that the leftist is engaging in censorship, he’s really saying “they are prohibiting speech which should be allowed”, or to simplify even further, “they are banning speech which I like.”

Moral Speech

We cannot agree on either Free Speech or Censorship, so let us turn to what moral speech might look like. Moral speech is virtuous and glorifies God. At worst it is neutral, because we must speak to conduct our daily business. There are examples of Immoral speech which we might review during examinations of conscience in preparation for the sacrament of reconciliation. Profane speech, taking the Lord’s name in vain, irreverence in Holy places or about Holy things. This speech amounts variously to venial or mortal sins. In a perfectly formed society like Edeny, this kind of speech is absolutely prohibited. No one argues that it is censorship because everyone agrees that it should be prohibited, but the residents of Anakay, in contrast, would argue that Edeny lives in an oppressive society with rampant censorship.

All Aboard the Censorship

So what does all this tell us about Censorship or Speech? Really, that it is commonplace. Every regime must require Censorship because some speech is counterproductive to a stable and effective society. Can a society persist where people are allowed to profane the very society they live in? Can we have reverence for God if we are allowed to invoke his name in profane or irreverent ways? Nothing can be sacred if we do not first treat it as sacred. Likewise, the virtues we value as a society ought to be rewarded, and their corresponding social vices ought to be discouraged. Censorship is a means to that end.

The question ultimately is: What is important enough to us as a society that speaking against it ought to be suppressed? Think about what it should be. Now consider what it currently is.

AMDG

XC – Obedience School For Christians

I had a brief dialogue with Richard Cocks at Orthosphere recently, and something about it rubbed me the wrong way. He was making a point that the opposite of Freedom is Slavery, and so Freedom is and ought to be the great mystery of life. In disagreeing, I argued that Freedom has two alternatives: Obedience and Slavery. Richard had this to say in reply:

As for obedience, I’m in favor of obedience for dogs and small children who can’t be trusted to be morally autonomous because they can understand only “this displeases me” but not why. But I don’t want my 23 year old son to obey me. I want him to join me in loving communion and shared ideals. Bearing in mind that he is a morally sound, well-meaning individual who, when he makes mistakes, he makes them involuntarily and accidentally. I am not here to judge him, but to be a parent who is there for him if and when he needs me, but mainly to loosely join our lives together in comradery and fellowship. He is free to communicate if and when he chooses with no consequences from me. Certainly no threats.

Richard Cocks, Orthosphere

This is an excellent critique, and forces me to explain why exactly Obedience ought to be preferred to freedom. I attempt to go into that here.

Freedom

When people refer to freedom, they generally are thinking of a few different things. 1) Autonomy, or the unrestrained nature of being. Any inhibition necessarily reduces autonomy, and is therefore opposed. 2) Liberation, the changing of one state to another. When I did Exodus 90, they described the process as “Freedom”. We weren’t any more free than when we started, but we changed states from ignorance of our own sin to a state of awareness and repugnance of our own sin. We were liberated from the shackles of sin. Some might consider themselves liberated from school at the end of a school day, or liberated from their parents when they move away from home. This kind of freedom implies by the change in state that there are new choices available to them which, by some external force, were previously unavailable. 3) Independence, or the absence of dependence on anyone else. This is differentiated from Autonomy, in that autonomy is freedom of action, while Independence is freedom from responsibility. The Independent rely on no one, and have no one relying on them. They are “free” to act without consideration of anyone’s interest.

The Freedom which Richard wishes for his son is the first sort of Freedom. He doesn’t wish to impose upon his son a sense of morality (which would surely make his son desire the second sort of Freedom), but rather would like his son to have the Freedom to choose a path, and he would like his son to freely choose the path that he himself chose. He wants to avoid using carrots or stick to incentivize certain behaviors, for fear of reducing his Freedom in the third sense.

Unfreedom

Richard said that the opposite of Freedom is Slavery, and I suggested that another corollary would be Obedience. Let’s re-examine these ideas given the clarifications above.

If we take the concepts introduced in 1, 2, and 3 above and simply invert them, we have a pretty clear depiction of Slavery. 1) Restrained nature of being. 2) Changing from a more-free to less-free state. 3) Dependence, totally reliant on others. But lets not rush to the other side of the scale: One can be restrained without being enslaved. One can burden themselves for some different benefit than immediate self interest. One can be partially dependent and have some advantages.

Lets consider livestock, specifically horses. Wild horses are romanticized as roaming free on the plains of the American west. They need to forage for food for themselves. Fight for mates for themselves. They live in the elements of the outdoors, their wounds can quickly become fatal. But consider farm horses. They don’t have to look for food at all. They are selectively bred. They are protected from the elements. Their wounds are cared for. In exchange, the horses must be put to some work. Some pull carts or farm equipment, others race: regardless, they must work.

To my mind, this is what Christ refers to when he says the yoke is easy and the burden is light. He restrains us, but doesn’t hurt us. We must do work, but it is not hard. This is a picture of Obedience.

Practical Obedience

I am not too far removed in age from Richard’s son, so I will use myself as an example instead. If I lived at home, my parents would be right to expect obedience from me in certain things. They would be unhappy, for example, if in the spirit of comradery and fellowship I failed to raise a hand to aid in the upkeep of the home. I would surely think I was being unduly restrained, enslaved from my formerly free state, if they imposed their will upon me. If my parents failed to instruct me that it was their expectation that I care for some aspect of the home while I lived there, they would be unreasonable to be irritated by not meeting expectations that were not communicated.

Even as a son living away from home, my parents expect certain behaviors, even if those behaviors have changed somewhat. If I failed to acknowledge my mothers birthday, for example, I would be in hot water with my father, and rightly so. Obedience, in the family, ensures that all are aligned to the good of the family.

Likewise, with Christendom: Obedience ensures that all are aligned to the good of God, the King of Creation. Obedience can not be ensured without both carrots and sticks. The burden is light, but still a burden. The reward is sharing in the beatific vision. An infinite reward at a modest price.

AMDG