How Free?

We in America love our freedom. We consider ourselves the most free people on the planet. If America has a god, it is freedom. That freedom enables us to worship our other gods, such as power, money, and, above all else, self. What is America if not "the land of the free?" We even have a "Bill of Rights" that guarantees our freedoms. In one single amendment to our Constitution we are assured that we have the freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble, and ... get this ... "to petition the government for a redress of grievances" -- whatever that means. (It means "Tell them you were wronged ... as if they'll do something about it.") There are ten of these amendments.

You may note that I skipped one of the key freedoms we celebrate in that First Amendment -- the freedom "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I skipped over that one because it is the springboard for this post. The question I want to ask is exactly how free we really are or even want to be? The reason I ask is the events of last week when the government raided a compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Now, the raid was not a function of religion. It was a function of child abuse and statutory rape. Still, the question remains. How free are we and how free do we want to be? You see, if it is true that the government shall pass no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and my religion wants to practice, say, child molesting, should the government be allowed to stop us from practicing our religion? I would hope that no one would argue that religious freedom should be that free. If someone chose to practice the worship of Molech, would we want them to be allowed to throw children into the sacrificial fire? Please tell me that no one would stand up for their free right to do so.

You see, we want freedom, but we certainly understand that we cannot have absolute freedom. We understand that we have freedom of speech, but we don't have the freedom to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. We don't want people to have that freedom. We want to have the right to bear arms, but we don't want to give that right to insane killers, so we have background checks to prevent it. We don't want people to have that freedom. On the other hand, we all know that the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure has resulted in real criminals being freed on technicalities.

So it begs the question. How free are we and how free do we want to be? We are guaranteed, for instance, "the right to a speedy and public trial." Now, how does that work? Well, after arrest we can expect arraignment, preliminary hearing, Grand Jury, indictment, possible plea-bargaining, and pre-trial procedures before the actual trial occurs. It could take years. In what sense is that "speedy"? Of course, the other side of the argument is that it takes all that time to get all the information and give a fair trial. So ... do you want "speedy" if you're wrongly arrested, or do you want all the information? How would you even define "excessive bail" or "cruel and unusual punishment"? We have the "freedom of speech" and "press", but when Don Imus decides to broadcast racial slurs over the airwaves, he is castigated and fired. What about his freedom?

We practically worship our freedom. On the other hand, it's not true that we're as free as we like to think. We happily limit our freedoms for the sake of the common welfare. We demand the freedom of speech, but when someone complains about what is said, it gets banned. We prefer the freedom of safety, for instance, over the freedom to bear arms, so we prevent felons from having firearms. On the other hand, we defend the freedom of speech for pornographers as if they have something to say. We want a free economy, but we have laws against monopolies and we're almost begging our government to step in and pass laws to fix the foreclosure problem. We demand freedom of religion but will not allow religious activities that we believe violate the laws for the common welfare. (Doesn't that beg the question? At what point do we negate all freedom of religion in the name of "the common welfare"?) Are we too free? Or are we not free enough? And do we really want freedom? We recognize the need to regulate freedom. Who gets to say what freedom is regulated and what isn't? Tough questions.