Press, religion, petition, assembly and … what was that last one again?

Oh yeah, speech. Freedom of speech. To be specific (emphasis mine):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I know the above sentence by heart. I had to: Dr. Horvit, one of my journalism professors, required it for us to pass her class. For a journalist, the First Amendment is tantamount to scripture. Without it, the profession—and, in my opinion, democracy—dies.

This week, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh stepped in it. During a rant about birth control, he referred to Georgetown student Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and demanded that she share her sex tapes with the taxpayers who, he said, are paying for her contraception. Such statements are par for the course for Limbaugh, but this one has earned more press than others. Advertisers are leaving his show, and he’s found himself the target of one Angelo Carusone, whose efforts helped remove Glenn Beck from the air.

From time to time, Carusone retweets the negative comments he receives from his dissenters. Much of the time, they’re ad hominem attacks, but he also receives comments from those who say his actions show he has no respect for the First Amendment. In short, these people argue that Limbaugh (and, in the past, Beck) should not only have the right to free speech but also the right to freedom from accountability.

This sentiment is hardly limited to Limbaugh supporters. In 2010, Sarah Palin expressed frustration over the dismissal of Dr. Laura Schlessinger‘s because of Schlessinger’s use of the word “nigger” during a broadcast. Palin tweeted:

Dr.Laura:don’t retreat…reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence”isn’t American,not fair”)

Aside from her bastardization of the English language, Palin doesn’t seem to grasp the intent of the First Amendment. We’re free to say what we want. In my opinion, that freedom should be fully unrestricted except in cases when one person’s speech might limit that of another (libel, for example). We have no guaranteed freedom for consequences, though. In this case, Schlessinger exercised her First Amendment rights by using a racial epithet on the air. The consequence: Her employer and her advertisers exercised their rights by leaving her in the dust.

The same goes for Limbaugh. He absolutely should not be censored by the government. He absolutely should be held accountable by the public for his words. If this means he loses advertisers, listeners and his job, so be it. Maybe then he and his supporters will realize the freedom to say something doesn’t mean that that something should indeed be said.

Addendum

As my friend Mike points out, offensive statements aren’t limited to the conservative realm. Bill Maher, for example, has used disgusting language for Sarah Palin in his stand-up routines. The above argument stands, though. Maher should have freedom of speech, but should he lose supporters or his show because of his speech, it would not be a violation of his rights. His liberal views should no more make him exempt from accountability than the conservative views of Limbaugh and Schlessinger.

When push comes to shove, we really don’t care about our kids

As I type this, my Twitter feed is exploding with news about today’s school shooting near Cleveland, Ohio. The incident is bad enough when seen in a vacuum, but with recent events at my place of work, it’s just another straw piled on the camel’s back.

These incidents expose a pervasive problem in the United States that also happens to be one of the most ignored: the fact that we as a society don’t particularly care about our children.

We think we do, of course. When incidents such as these occur, we throw fits in government meetings and point fingers. We increase security, and we deploy teams of counselors. We make vows and pledges. In short: We react, and we do so quite well.

But where’s the proactive stance? Where was the mentor in the life of the teenager whose reckless driving killed two (including himself) and injured others? The warning signs were there. Many of his teachers tried to make a difference, but he needed more of a commitment than most teachers have time to make. (And for that, I do not fault them.)

If we cared about our kids, we’d fund our schools sufficiently so that teachers would have the time to pay more attention to their students’ needs. If we cared about our kids, we’d make it easier for families to survive on one full-time income, allowing parents to raise their children properly. If we cared about our kids, we’d volunteer in community centers and schools, we’d adopt every child in foster care, we’d ensure access to good healthcare for every child in America.

But we don’t. Instead of taking proactive stances, we, as a society, ignore our kids until something bad happens. Then we point fingers asking how “they” could let this happen.

The ugly truth is that every time a child dies or is injured because of a preventable occurrence, we—not “they,” we, as a society—are the ones who let it happen.

Treat her right

About a year ago, G and I were driving to dinner with one of G’s friends. The friend, whom we’ll call “F,” was talking about an argument he’d recently had with his mom. Like any other teenager, he was upset because he didn’t get what he wanted. And then it happened: F called his mom a “bitch.”

My little bro, G, who had been sitting and listening to the diatribe, spoke up. “Don’t talk about your mom like that,” I remember him saying. He proceeded to tell his friend that his mother was a good person who didn’t deserve that kind of talk.

I beamed with pride. G and I have often talked about how men should treat women. The gist: You can measure a man by how he treats the women in his life. We talk about respect and, in regards to girls he dates, fidelity and honesty. Calling Mom a “bitch,” then, is unacceptable. So is any sort of violence—physical or emotional or verbal—against a woman or girl.

I know G has made mistakes in this area, but it’s clear to me that his heart’s in the right place. For the most part, he treats his mom and his girlfriend with a great deal of respect. His example is one other students—and many adults—would be smart to follow.

Ending poverty: church vs. state

One of the biggest arguments (especially from the religious right) against the public safety net for the very poor is that such “big government” programs would horn in on the territory of places of worship. In short: It’s the church’s job to take care of the poor, the orphans and the widows.

I agree. At least with that last bit. Let’s run the numbers:

There were 313,232,044 people in the United States in July 2011, and 76.8 percent of them claimed Catholicism, Protestantism or another Christian denomination (source). That comes down to about 240,562,210 people.

According to the Census Bureau, there were 46.2 million impoverished Americans in September 2011, about 15 percent of the population as a whole. Assuming this percentage doesn’t discriminate based on religion, the number of Christians who are above the poverty line is probably around 204,477,879.

Based on all this rough-and-dirty math, there’s be about four Christians above the poverty line for every person in the nation who’s below it.

Four to one.

Imagine the possibilities. A church family of four could “adopt” a local student, helping his or her family pay for school supplies, food, clothing, etc. A group of friends could offer free, after-school tutoring. A business team could provide job training and networking opportunities. A group of construction-savvy individuals from a Sunday school class could repair homes on the weekends.

These things are happening, sure, but on a much smaller scale. I’m talking about large-scale mobilization: 204 million people doing everything they can to help the 46.2 million people in this country who don’t know whether they can afford food or heat this week.

If that were to happen, there’d be no need for the public safety net. Given the fact that poverty is increasing in this country, though, it’s clear to me that U.S. churches aren’t truly serious about ending this problem. If we were, we’d spend our money and time a little differently. We’d forego the multimedia extravaganzas and instead use that money to make sure area children have warm clothes. We’d cancel services once in a while and tell our parishioners to go mow lawns or repair fences. We’d open our homes and our hearts to the poor among us, not because they’re our projects but because they’re our fellow humans, sharing in the imago Dei.

But we don’t. We claim we do. We talk a big game. We proudly show our “Outreach” budgets on the church ledger, but when push comes to shove, we’d rather have a new digital projector in the worship center than give that $10,000 to a community college student who’s trying to graduate and start his family on its way out of poverty.

The public safety net doesn’t exist because of some malicious government plot to control our lives and decrease our freedoms, it exists because the 204 million Christians in this country have flat-out failed to address a real and solvable problem. We only have ourselves to blame.

Protect and serve

I just read this. You should read it, too. Go head, this post can wait.

There’s quite a bit about that article that I found troubling, but none more than this: Teachers and administrators, who are paid by the district to protect the best interests of the students in their charge, did nothing to stop the bullying they encountered. Their reason? Job protection.

Let me be clear: If I have to choose between the safety of one of my students and my monthly paycheck, I’ll pick the former every time. I can live without money, but I can’t live with the thought that I didn’t do everything in my power to protect those under my care.

Le génocide, la France et la liberté d’expression

Translate here (somewhat accurately).

Aujourd’hui en France, le Parlement a adopté une nouvelle proposition qui pénalise la négation des génocides qui sont officiellement reconnus par le gouvernement français. (Il y en a deux : la Shoah et le génocide arménien en 1915.)

Cette proposition a bien sûr ses opposants, surtout les Turcs qui habitent la France. Les Turcs ne croient pas que la violence contre les Arméniens était un génocide. D’après eux, c’était simplement une conséquence de la Première Guerre mondiale.

C’est clair que les morts de 600 000 à 1 500 000 sont horribles, mais je vois un autre problème : la liberté d’expression. En France, il était déjà interdit de nier la Shoah. Après l’adoption de cette loi, il sera interdit de nier un autre avis, une autre idée : que les morts arméniennes ne constituent pas un génocide.

Moi, je pense que ces interdictions sont effrayantes. Aux États-Unis, nos mots et nos avis sont bien libres. Nous pouvons nier la violence, l’histoire, etc., sans sanction. Mais en France, la liberté d’expression devient de plus en plus limitée. Je pense que c’est étrange pour un pays qui nous a donné la Déclaration des droits de l’homme, un document qui dit : “Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, même religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l’ordre public établi par la Loi.”

Pensez : Qu’est-ce qui se passe si quelqu’un nie l’génocide arménien ? C’est un avis, tout simplement. Un avis ne change pas les faits du passé ! Les fous, laissez-les être fous.

La liberté d’expression est le plus important des droits de l’homme, et on doit être prudent avec ses limites. Aujourd’hui, un gouvernement dit qu’on ne peut pas être en désaccord au sujet d’un génocide. Demain, c’est possible un gouvernement dirait qu’on doit être en accord au sujet de la science, de la religion, de la guerre ou des autres idées.

Ce jour-là : C’est la fin.

The new Top 25: final rankings

I’m trying a new NCAA football ranking system. You can read about it here.

Congratulations to the Oklahoma State Cowboys for winning its first national title!

Image via Wikipedia

Final rankings

1. Oklahoma State (12-1)
2. Alabama (12-1) +1
3. LSU (13-1) -1
4. TCU (11-2)
5. West Virginia (10-3) +14
6. USC (10-2)
7. Oklahoma (10-3)
8. Oregon (12-2) +9
9. Arkansas (11-2)
10. Texas A&M (7-6) +
11. Michigan State (11-3) +
12. Utah (8-5) +
13. Stanford (11-2)
14. Baylor (10-3)
15. Kansas State (10-3)
16. Florida State (9-4) +
17. Wisconsin (11-3) -9
18. Auburn (8-5)
19. Clemson (10-4) -14
20. Missouri (8-5)
21. South Carolina (11-2) +
22. North Carolina State (8-5) +
23. Michigan (11-2)
24. Texas (8-5)
25. Louisiana Monroe (4-8)

Dropped from rankings: Northwestern, 10; Georgia, 11; Georgia Tech, 12; Notre Dame, 16; Nebraska, 21; Louisville, 22.