Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others
lately can become very confusing.
About six weeks ago leading up to the election, there was
quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how
important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time,
some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were
able to get to the polls. Some continued to
subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification
at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as
possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.
We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen few
efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite seems to be true. Exercising this right is burdened by several
requirements: background check, waiting
period, etc. Where are the people who
will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting
there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging
people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.
We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered
innocent until proven guilty. This seems
to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for
others. If law enforcement or courts do not
do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case
picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s
or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.
We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to
without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest
against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive
or not correspond with their worldview. Students
are supposedly in college to learn.
Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to
understand another’s point of view.
Instead they protest demanding a cancellation of the event or attend to
heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil
or offensive. When confronted with the idea
of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies
to government interference.
It has gotten to the point where a few universities have
adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written
statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial
invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of
whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or
wrong-headed. This action tries to move
the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of
learning.
And it’s not just students.
Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can
only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word
itself. Many people feel they must
consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent
offense or micro-aggression. If you
refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and
traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers,
you are subjugating half the population.
And on it goes. Political rallies
have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and
the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets.
Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t
treat rights the same. Some are
encouraged, some defended, some ignored and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment