[This section excerpts part of a new set of commandments presented in chapter 55. Nanook (italics) is talking with Father Vincent ( + sign ) and Ben ( & sign ). ]

Intro

“OK. Moving on to commandment three: treating every person with respect, including respect for individual thought, but not necessarily their conclusions.”

+ “This commandment is primarily directed at freedom of speech. But it starts out by focusing on free thought. People need to know that they are free to explore ANY subject in their thoughts. This of course is a conflict with the Christian commandments related to coveting.

Thinking, of course, does not become a social issue until we communicate those thoughts or act on them. While the Bill of Rights claims to protect free speech, as we discussed, it completely fails at it. What my new commandment does is enable three things. It supports the importance of thought, it addresses the complexity of this issue and it implies that speech is NOT totally free.

Four elements of speech

As we discussed before, the concept of free speech, which should really be thought of as freedom of communication, has four elements: the right to express a communication; the right not to express a communication; the right to receive a communication; the right not to receive a communication. What people need to accept is that there are cases where it is reasonable for each of these to be limited.

One of the classic examples where a person’s speech is limited is yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire. What this is an example of is a broad category of speech related to communicating MISLEADING or FALSE information. But a person can yell anything in the woods where no one else can hear, and no harm will be done. So, the issue of LIABILITY for expressing a communication is resolved by determining, the IMPACT that the communication has on society. So, this legal issue can be resolved by facing the problem in that way. There should be NO penalty given directly for ANY human expression. However, EVERY human expression is subject to a penalty for the consequences it produces.”

& “And that covers a whole range of things like libel laws, for example.”

+ “Precisely! And it sets a NEW standard for how children are taught. They will no longer be told that they have the ‘right’ to say anything they want. They will be told that everything they say has consequences and they’d better learn the social complexities involved.”

“So, that means if a group wants to express their view that the Holocaust never happened, or that they believe in witchcraft, they are no longer protected by the law to do so. Is that right?”

+ “NO. That’s not what I’m saying. The law still has the responsibility to protect a citizen’s right to speak. There are only a very few reasons where one citizen is allowed to assault another, for example. But every case is a complex situation. So, a person who assaults someone for giving a speech on witchcraft or almost any other topic, will be subject to punishment. But if a person making a witchcraft speech insists on doing so in the middle of a fundamentalist revival meeting, and the person is beat up, the judge should have the flexibility to hand out a feeble sentence. On the other hand, if the assault resulted in death, rather than eviction from the meeting, the sentence might be quite different.”

“I see. What you are saying is that the situation is COMPLEX.”

+ “Precisely! And it’s not easy to summarize the complexity in just a few words other than to say total freedom is NOT guaranteed.

Need to focus on the individual

There is another aspect that this commandment addresses. That is INDIVIDUALITY. To do that effectively, we need to develop mechanisms to capture the views of EACH citizen as an individual, not just as part of a poll. And then we have to act to address all of those viewpoints. But, at the same time, the commandment states that the result may NOT give people what they want if what they want doesn’t adhere to reality or causes PROVABLE harm to others.

Notice that I didn’t specify age here. The idea of respecting elders was part of the authoritarian model. If elders are worthy of respect, and they should be based on seeking wisdom throughout their life, then they will get it. If they don’t earn it, however, they shouldn’t get it.

But while respecting everyone’s right to free thought, this commandment is also a directive that everyone in society is also free to challenge what is said, even the pronouncements of institutions like religions. This is a universal.”

& “Again, the need to challenge the sacred theology taboo.”

+ “Precisely! And finally, the commandment establishes an absolute foundation based on logic. Let me read what Ayn Rand had to say about this. Let’s see. Atlas, page 949.”

“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both of us will profit.”

“So, you’re saying the absolute foundation of challenging anything that is stated by anyone is the search for REALITY?”

+ “Precisely!

Expose the failure of religion and the holy books

Clarify that we are NOT here for same purpose

A new government has to come clean on the principle of separation of church and state. It has to give ALL the people clear proof of this. So, as a minimum, it needs to make a statement that it recognizes that all people do not believe they are on this earth for the same reason. Because of this, people may have very different views of what behaviors they may express in society. While a legal structure can have the goal of providing FREEDOM to express religion for as many of it’s citizens as possible, it knows that it will not be able to do so for those with positions harmful to others. But it can do way better than what society has done in the past. And to do that in an equitable way, the rules of law will be re-designed without regard to ANY specific religion. In this age, that specifically requires a re-evaluation of all the laws with regard to the influence of Christian principles. For example, the laws supporting national celebrations for Christian holidays must be re-assessed to balance respect for ALL other religions in the country.

Defend Freedom of Religion

“So, you aren’t saying that the new society would prohibit religion.”

+ “Absolutely not. The primary goal, remember, is freedom. Prohibition of religion would directly conflict with that. In fact, this commandment is the primary defense for Freedom of Religion. What the government would do is support and rely on the new educational system to provide clear comparative information about all the religions, and the implications of practicing those religions, for people to make logical choices.

Force the religions to clarify the definition of their God and gods and other supernatural beings

And because this will be such a major issue in the country, the religions will be expected to present supporting information to the colleges to probe the real deep questions. Then, for example, if the colleges ask the most basic question of all, that is, to define God or gods, they can compare the definitions on a logical basis against tangible verifiable facts. And they can generate critical discussions about some slippery concepts like: are angles gods?’ Why not? Is the devil a god? Why not? Are demons gods? Why not?

Reduce the adversity that Religions thrive on

And now, let me address one of the most basic religious questions of all: why do people seek out religion? We’ve discussed part of this. They seek religion to explain mysterious things in the world. The other major reason is to escape oppression. They turn to religion when they know they can’t get relief by appealing to their government. Let me read a paragraph about this from Neitzsche. Let’s see. Page 69.”

“Perhaps nothing in Christianity and Buddhism is so worthy of respect as their skill in teaching even the lowest that they can be included in a higher illusionary order of things through piety. This enables the religion to keep them satisfied to remain in the real order in which they find it difficult enough to live – but precisely, this difficulty is necessary! Finally, … we must draw up the wicked counter-evidence that these religions present … uncanny dangerousness. One must always pay dearly and frightfully when religions do not operate as a cultivating and educating force in the hands of philosophers, but rule sovereign and … want to be ultimate ends in themselves instead of means among other means.”

“This is the ‘opiate of the masses’ issue again.”

“+ “Precisely! But do you see the dilemma? If society does well by it’s members, then the members will not be in a ‘difficult’ situation that they need to escape from. It’s as if the extent of religion in a population is a direct measure of oppression or destitution of the society. We should ask this question about the U.S. With a goal to eliminate such destitution, a successful social structure should automatically reduce the religious impulses that created the religions in the first place.

Religious research

And this leads to another task to be set for the colleges. That is, they should completely explore the elements of society that religion is supposed to affect in order to MEASURE exactly what that effect is. They would then determine if the effects are based on supernatural influence, or have a material explanation? What I’m trying to say here is that we need to heed the warning of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty.”

“The notion that it is one man’s duty that another should be religious, was the foundation of all the religious persecutions ever perpetrated and if admitted, would fully justify them.”