Fundamental Fear of Fire: Terror Management Theory and Fundamental Christianity

  

A Fundamental Fear of Fire:

Terror Management Theory and Fundamental Christianity

by Jacob Oblak

The Psychology of Religion

Professor Raymond Lambert

December 11, 2011

Few topics produce anxiety like the topic of death. When confronted with the reality and inevitability of death, most people have internal fears and anxiety associated with those thoughts. In fact, historical study suggests that this anxiety is inherent to all of humanity. Indeed, psychologist Ralph Hood explained that “we humans do not take kindly to death…[but] repress, deny, shun, and withdraw where possible from reminders of death” (Hood, Hill and Spilka 184). German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, known for his investigation of human motivation, said that “the fear of death is the beginning of philosophy and the final cause of religion” (Durant 328). Christian Fundamentalists, like most people in the world, would readily agree that their death is inevitable. However, their intense fear of absolute death results in their condemnation of non-believers to hell, manipulative practices, and conformity that isolates them from dissent and suppresses contradictions.

Admitting death’s inevitability and proximity poses no problem for fundamentalists. However, this admission comes with major caveats. Christian fundamentalists present a choice: either you get saved by believing correctly, or God will send you to hell. More succinctly, these fundamentalists teach that there is no need to fear death as long as you have received Jesus as your savior. This dichotomous presentation stems both from viewing of death as the worst punishment and from a fear of death. When the God of the Old Testament was displeased with people, he most often killed them (Meredith 121-123). In the New Testament, Paul views death as the enemy (I Corinthians 15:26, NKJV). Jesus even argued that losing limbs was better than eternal death in hell (Mark 9:43, NKJV).

The fallacy of wishful thinking (claiming an argument’s veracity because things would be horrible if it were not so) often emerges as a response to fear of death. Fundamentalists claim to base their beliefs on the Bible, and many of their arguments for why Christianity is correct stem not from logical and reasonable persuasion, but from fear of death. A prominent argument propounded by Paul, to whom most fundamentalists attribute nearly half of the New Testament, posits that if Paul’s teachings about Christ were untrue, Paul’s “message has no meaning and your faith…is nonsense and sin still has you in its power. Then those who have died as believers in Christ no longer exist. If Christ is our hope in this life only, we deserve more pity than any other people” (Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, NKJV). Paul’s fear of cessation of existence, or absolute death, provides the ultimate foundation for his belief in Christ’s salvation.

In their groundbreaking Psychology of Religion, Hood, Hill and Spilka suggest that an inability to accept the reality of death could be the cause of fundamentalists’ insistence on heaven and hell, saying that “the idea of total termination is rightfully terrifying to most people; hence the need to convince oneself that life never really ends (Hood, Hill & Spilka 185-188). Fundamental Christianity compounds their fear of mortality by introducing punishment after death: hell. A prominent theologian for Christian Apologetics Research Ministries, a well-known evangelical Christian organization, states that “hell is a real place.  It is not mere unconsciousness.  It is not temporal.  It is eternal torment.  Perhaps that is why Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven and spent so much time warning people not to go there” (Slick). Fundamentalist Christianity often employs this belief during sermons and revivals to pressure non-believers into accepting Jesus as their personal Savior. As one fervent fundamentalist puts it, “only 1% of the population is truly born-again.  This means that 2,328 people enter into Heaven each and every day.  And sadly, 230,548 people plunge into hellfire each and every day… It's Jesus or Hell” (Stewart). This form of manipulation of human fear and anxiety runs rampant throughout fundamentalism.

Indeed, one of the most famous sermons in Christian history, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards, finds its way into many sermons in fundamental churches all over the world. This sermon focused solely upon this premise: for the “unconverted persons [without] Christ,…that lake of burning brimstone is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air” (Edwards). Many fundamentalist Christians fear death more than anything else simply because they cannot be certain they have lived a life worthy of a Christian. Their ultimate fear is finding themselves at the judgment seat of Christ, being counted as one who was deceived, and being cast away as an unbeliever (Matthew 25:31-46). And many fundamentalists suppress this fear by repeating Paul’s argument that their beliefs must be correct; otherwise, their life would be vain and their death would be final.

To remove the natural anxiety of the thought of death as far from consciousness as possible, fundamentalists must first ignore any contradictions, inconsistencies, or fallacies both in the Bible and in their interpretation and application of it. For instance, fundamental Christian theologian Charles Ryrie, in his Basic Theology textbook for many fundamentalist universities, addresses the question of the Bible’s authority by arguing that “the only way the Scripture can lose its authority is if it contains errors, but Christ taught that the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus He must have believed it did not contain errors….Who can say he fully follows the Lord without accepting His teaching concerning the inerrancy of the Scriptures” (Ryrie 106). This specific example of a priori reasoning clearly shows the avoidance of real questions or real discussion as to the veracity of the holy books in question. Indeed, Ryrie begins his writing by admitting that his trust in the authority of the Bible “is a basic presupposition” (ibid 16). Therefore, his efforts in later chapters to prove that assumption are mere circular reasoning.

Indeed, fallacies abound throughout fundamentalism’s arguments for their doctrines and for the Bible. Ryrie exemplifies multiple fallacies in one quote:

If I come to the Bible with confidence that its words were breathed out by God and are therefore without errors, and if that confidence has been buttressed by years of proving the Bible totally reliable, then I won’t be shaken by a problem and I certainly will not conclude that it is in error. But if I think that there can be errors in the Bible, however few or many, then I will likely conclude that some of those problems are examples of errors. And even if there is only one, I have an errant Bible” (ibid 108).

The overall fallacy is one giant bogus dilemma, as he presents readers the choice between two opposites: either the reader accepts Ryrie’s proposed explanation for the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, or the reader must conclude that errors exist and that the Bible is not authoritative. Missing are viable alternatives. One could ostensibly believe the Bible is inerrant and come across error, or one could believe in the possibility of errors, search for errors, but never find one.

Additionally, Ryrie claims to have proved the perfection of the Bible by years of never having found an error. Ryrie’s inability to find an error illustrates the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, which philosopher and logician Madsen Pirie described as an “appeal…to ignorance” that “is committed when we use our lack of knowledge about something in order to infer that its opposite is the case” (Pirie 92-3). Incidentally, Ryrie’s reaction to a potential error shows his a priori reasoning process as he intimates that his prior belief in inerrancy will dismiss the problem. Ryrie has so insulated himself from the very possibility that his view might be incorrect that his illogic poses no threat to his faith in his systematic understanding of God. Biblical contradictions raise no questions as to the Bible’s historicity or accuracy; they merely show the world’s attempts to undermine his faith and his ardent avoidance of the thought of total cessation of being.

The fundamental Christian has already sidestepped those potential contradictions, obvious logical flaws, and subsequent mindfulness of death with a foolproof method called the belief perseverance effect. Faced with new facts that contradict existing beliefs, fundamentalists like Ryrie simply dismiss those new facts with a priori reasoning. According to PhD Psychologists Shiraev and Levy, this approach is “not rational at all. Specifically, when our beliefs are being challenged, we a prone to feel that we personally are being challenged...[and] we tend to cling to our beliefs, sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence” (Shiraev and Levy 85-6). As one prominent fundamentalist pastor, Ernest Pickering, argued, “The Bible presents a faith which, while not irrational, is not the product of human reason, nor sustained by it” (Pickering 75-6). Belief perseverance is no mere phenomenon in fundamental Christianity, showing up in select individuals who were especially prone to such illogic. Pickering preempted any questions, facts, or evidences contrary to his existing beliefs by discounting reasoning and logic themselves. Belief perseverance is a central, foundational piece to fundamentalism’s approach to thought. They are taught by pastors similar to Pickering that employing belief perseverance by “discounting, denying, or simply ignoring any information that runs counter to [their] beliefs” (Shiraev and Levy 86) is actually godliness.

A priori belief perseverance precipitates this godliness, and fundamentalists apply it to questions regarding science as well. Without delving into the various arguments surrounding creation and evolution, one need look no further than Ryrie’s analysis of the question to know that further discussion is pointless. Ryrie argues that “whatever truths science may uncover can never be accepted as absolute truth” (Ryrie 206). No matter what verifiable scientific facts might be presented to the fundamentalist Christian, regardless of the topic, the Christian has been coached by pastors, theologians, and spiritual leaders in fundamentalism to reject scientific practice outright. In this way, those leaders maintain control over their constituents, because no outside facts are permitted to cloud the thinking of their followers.

Fundamentalists avoid their anxiety over their imminent death not only by refusing to consider alternatives to their views, but also by striving for conformity through isolation from dissenters and by suppressing any apparent contradictions. The immense pressure placed on both prospective converts and existing members intensifies with the threat of hell as the alternative to belief. This exemplifies an extreme version of the normative influence, which “leads people to conform because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant” (Kassin 227). This normative influence bringing conformity shelters fundamentalists from the alternative of death. To avoid pondering the possibility of their wrongness, many have separated themselves from that very possibility, for the anxiety created by the consciousness of impending death can be profound.

Pioneer psychologists and researchers Solomon, Pyszczynski, and Greenberg found that salience of death greatly affected Christians’ view of other people. They conducted studies in which “mortality was made salient to half of the subjects,…[and] mortality salience led to more positive evaluations of the in-group member (the Christian) and more negative evaluations of the out-group member (the Jew)” (Greenberg, Pyszczynski & Solomon, 1990). This intergroup bias surfaces in most social issues confronted by fundamentalism. Since in-group/out-group bias is difficult to avoid in any circle, its presence alone might not be problematic if many in fundamentalism were fighting bias.

However, this bias does not merely occur in random sections of fundamental Christianity; intergroup bias, like belief perseverance, is mandated by their doctrine. Fundamentalists use the term separation instead of bias. Ernest Pickering argued that if someone “is teaching error and he cannot be persuaded to the truth, he must be excluded from fellowship” (Pickering 219). Other criteria warranting separation according to Pickering included those “walking in immorality” (ibid 219) and those who “failed to follow the prescribed rules and to maintain the required standards” (ibid 220). Essentially, fundamentalism requires a total separation from those who disagree with their dogmas, beliefs, morality, standards and practices. For fundamentalists, there can be no acceptance of differences, for this would lead to apostasy. In fact, many fundamental Presbyterians have enacted ecclesiastical separation for years to avoid apostasy (14^th General Assembly 52-72).

The intergroup bias resulting in total separation from opposing ideas is foundational to Christian fundamentalism. Fred Moritz, the executive director of the fundamental Christian Baptist World Mission, argues that “a militant spirit…is a necessary, greatly misunderstood, and oft opposed part of our faith and heritage” (Moritz 97-8). The militancy and separation required by fundamentalists isolates the followers of fundamentalism from dissent or people who disagree. All outsiders are cast into the category of unsaved, thus enforcing fundamentalism’s out-group homogeneity bias through detaching themselves and their fellowship from those out-group members. Many such Christians will quote Jesus’ admonition that “he who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad” (Matthew 12:30, NKJV) and apply it to anyone who disagrees with them on any matters of importance. This false dichotomy merely further separates the fundamentalist group from what is often termed the Other.

Professor Lilia Melani, of Brooklyn College, defines the Other as “an individual who is perceived by the group as not belonging, as being different in some fundamental way….The group…judges those who do not meet that norm…as the Other” (Melani). Such segregation and separation often results in prejudice: “the Other is almost always seen as lesser…inferior…less intelligent…or immoral” (Melani). Indeed, such prejudice frequents fundamental Christianity. Homosexuals are viewed as out-group and the Other. Famous fundamental Christian pastor John MacAurthur authored a book called Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong, and he argues that “gay and lesbian desires are…‘unnatural,’… [and] a person who is homosexual (gay or lesbian) or effeminate is not a true believer no matter how passionate their claim… [and] have an unresponsive and hostile heart when it comes to the truth” (MacAurthur 98-9, italics in original). The foundation for his denunciation of the gays who disagree with his view of truth rests on the term unnatural. This naturalistic argument lies at the very heart of their intergroup bias. Shiraev’s and Levy’s study on critical thinking outlined the naturalistic fallacy quite succinctly, citing Scottish philosopher David Hume’s research into the is-ought problem. As they point out, “our personal values can bias our thinking…when we equate our description of what is with our prescription of what ought to be” (Shiraev and Levy 82).

The fallacious nature of fundamentalists’ argumentation slows them only slightly. For set against the foundation of isolation from such opposing ideas or viewpoints, members of fundamentalist groups rarely encounter strong opposition, thereby avoiding their fear of mortality almost entirely. This avoidance of critical opposition creates some cognitive dissonance as bible-believing fundamentalists wrestle with biblical examples of persecution that early Christians faced. This often results in fundamentalists intentionally looking for persecution wherever they can find it, sometimes through their own invention or instigation. Moritz believes that “impending persecution” justifies “contend[ing] for [the faith] at any cost” (Moritz 101), and in the Bible Peter warns that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12, NKJV). Christians find such persecution at the hands of liberals who somehow refuse them the right to even say the word ‘Christmas’ (Gibson 1) or liberals who promote a “‘gay agenda’ in our postmodern era” (MacAurthur 98). Fundamentalists’ search for persecution yields persecution, which essentially creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their “expectations create reality” (Shiraev and Levy 74), and they believe that they are being persecuted. This in turn comforts them, because Jesus explicitly states that his followers “will be hated by all nations for [Jesus’] name’s sake” (Matthew 24:9, NKJV). Their comfort through persecution directly alleviates their fear of complete cessation of life and their fear of meaninglessness.

Fundamentalists fear the absolute cessation of consciousness so greatly that they go to great lengths to condemn non-believers to hell, ignore contradictions and opposing facts, and enforce conformity. Their methods are psychologically manipulative, as they rely heavily on mental control and fallacious reasoning. Their constituents remain isolated from those who would disagree, and fundamentalist leaders strictly enforce this separation. Sadly, this psychological, mental, and spiritual abuse merely compounds the eventual anxiety that will be produced when a fundamentalist does finally, truly consider death. They find ingenious ways of avoiding these death thoughts and putting them off indefinitely. As noted philosophical psychologist Ervin Yalom says, “Every person must choose how much truth he can stand” (Yalom 277). Apparently for fundamentalists, their choice involves only their preexisting suppositions. Other truths are simply too much.

Works Cited

Durant, W. (1977). The story of philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster. Print.

Edwards, Jonathan. "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Calvin College Computer Science, 08-06-1741. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Gibson, John. The War on Christmas. New York: Sentinel HC, Penguin Books, 2005. Print.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory ii: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(1), 308-315. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1990-14626-001

Kassin, S., S. Fein, and H. R. Markus. Social psychology. 7th. Boston: Houghton Mifflin College Div, 2008. Print.

MarAurthur, John. Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2009. Print.

Melani, Lilia. "The Other." Core Curriculum 10.07; The Emergence of the Modern . Brooklyn College, 09 05 2009. Web. 11 Dec 2011. Meredith, J. L. (2009). Meredith's complete book of bible lists, a one-of-a-kind collection of bible facts. Bloomington: Bethany House.

Moritz, Fred. Contending for the Faith. Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 2000. Print.

New King James Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. 1979. Print.

Pickering, Ernest D. Biblical Separation, The Struggle For A Pure Church. Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press, 1979. Print.

Pirie, First. How To Win Every Argument; The Use and Abuse of Logic.. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1969. Print.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Basic Theology, A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth. La Habra: Moody Publisher Press, 1999. Print.

Shiraev, E., and D. A. Levy. Cross-cultural psychology, critical thinking and contemporary applications. 4th. Boston: Pearson College Div, 2010. Print.

Slick, Matthew. "Hell." Christian Apologetics Research Ministries. Carm: Christian Apologetics Research Ministries, 2011. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Stewart, David. "Billions of People are Going to Hell!." Jesus Is Savior. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec 2011. .

Yalom, I. D. When nietzsche wept, a novel of obsession. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.

14th General Assembly. "APOSTASY AND ECCLESIASTICAL SEPARATION." PCA Digest. 1985: 52-72. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. .

Christianity ...... and then women

In his treatise “On Paradise,” Saint Ambrose of Milan wrote that “though the man was created outside Paradise, an inferior place, he is found to be superior, while woman, though created in a better place, inside Paradise, is found inferior.” Ambrose was certain, due to the Bible’s teachings, that women were inferior. And for centuries since the Bible was written, women have been regarded as the lesser creation that came from man and was subservient to man. Cataloguing the injustices committed against women throughout history would fill books (and probably has), so here are some highlights: marital rape, blame for husband’s infidelity, forced marriages, little to no political rights, father’s then husband’s property, emotional manipulation, oppressive dress rules, blame for men’s lust, sole responsibility and punishment for adultery, and practical slavery in the home, among others. While many argue that the Christian subjection of women derives largely from Greek myth and Roman law, the basic premise of much of the early church fathers’ teachings centered on Paul’s arguments (in I Timothy 2) that women were created after men and drew men into sin and from the belief that God is masculine. While modern Christianity would have us believe that it has left behind its subjugation of women, many or even most denominations of Christianity and other religions that believe in the Bible still hold to these basic and corrupt premises. By holding onto the hierarchal and patriarchal power structure taught here, Christianity falls far short of renouncing its oppression of women. Instead, modern Christianity reinforces these stereotypes and generalizations while claiming to denounce them by maintaining this fraudulent foundation.


Many great philosophers and theologians in Christian history demeaned women and relegated them to statuses barely above animals. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and immense influence of much of Western Christianity and thought, argued that in “regards [to] the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power....” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1.) So women are only valuable in as much as they reflect men. And since they fall far short of men, women are that much more imperfect and defective. Not only were women considered flawed, but, as Tertullian argued, all women are like Eve; they are “the devil's gateway,” “the unsealer of that forbidden tree.” Tertullian further argued that the woman (and therefore all women) was “the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die” (Tertullian, “On the Dress of Women”). Tertullian blamed women not only for dragging men to hell, but for causing Jesus to die.

Some of the harshest words ever penned about women come from Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation: “Women are created for no other purpose than to serve men and be their helpers. If women grow weary or even die while bearing children, that doesn’t harm anything. Let them bear children to death; they are created for that” (Martin Luther as quoted by Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks in “Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe”). But it wasn’t like Luther one day woke up and decided to oppress women with such degrading and asinine statements. Luther merely finds himself essentially quoting the Apostle Paul, who says to “let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (I Timothy 2:11-15). It’s incredible how so much oppression can stem from this verse and the two others that Paul includes in his writings. If oppression of women were relegated to only the Old Testament (covenant), then perhaps women would have stood a better chance of attaining equality. However, because of Paul’s words here and in I Corinthians 11:3 and 14:34, Christianity has found many ways to keep the women subjected and out of power.

Protestantism’s (and larger Christianity’s) rallying cry is solo scriptura, or Scripture alone. But Paul’s teaching about men having been created first contradicts what is actually written in Genesis. In Genesis 1:27, where God creates the first human being, the Hebrew word “adam” was used where we have the word “man.” However, this translation conveys masculinity where masculinity is absent in the Hebrew. Rather, the word “adam” is gender neutral. In Strong’s concordance, the Hebrew word “adam” (H120) means “a human being, an individual, the species of mankind, a person.” English did not contain a genderless pronoun (in modern English we use “it,” but translators did not want to apply “it” to a human), so the translators used the word “man.” But instead of having created a man as we define man today, God had created a genderless human being. This was the first human, and it was created in God’s image. The last phrase of the verse shows that “adam” is not male; when verse 27 says that “male and female created he them,” the word “male” is a completely different Hebrew word. “Zakar” is Hebrew for male or masculine, and “nqebeh” is Hebrew for female. And even though Christian history has named the first human Adam and assigned masculine gender to Adam, the truth is quite different. Even the Hebrew name Adam (Genesis 2:20) merely means “the first human” (Strong’s H121).

In the second creation account, in Genesis chapter 2, we find the same genderless word for human in verse 7: “And the Lord God formed ‘adam’ from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and ‘adam’ became a living soul.” God then, in verse 8, placed ‘adam’ in the Garden of Eden. Even when God was creating the second human later in the chapter, God never took a rib out of ‘adam.’ Rather, the word King James’ translators translated “rib” actually literally means “a side of the body” according to Strong’s concordance (H6763). So the first human wasn’t gendered, and what God created the second human from was half of the first human. No wonder ‘adam’ immediately, upon awaking, exclaims that its new companion is “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” (2:23).

Paul neglected to take this into account. He, in accordance with Greek myth, Roman law, and Christian tradition, assumed that men were created before women and were alone created in God’s image. However, if God created the second human from half of the first, who is to say which of the halves bears the image of God and which does not? Rather, both were and are equally God’s image. Relationship defined the atmosphere of God’s creation. Everywhere the first human looked he saw friendship and companionship. Even though God had created a complete human and declared that creation “good,” something was still missing. The animals all had partners, but the human, “adam,” did not have anyone to cherish, love, and become one with. The whole point of dividing “adam” into two was so that the two could reunite as “one flesh” (2:24). The point of creation was companionship.

There was no power structure in the first account of humanity. Hierarchy was nonexistent in God’s perfect, created world, because love consumed every thought and all intent, leaving no room for control. There was nothing to control. Even the first rule, the only rule that God gave the first humans, had nothing to do with controlling them or their actions. Instead, God’s command to not eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil centered more on the desire for power and knowledge of sin than eating an actual fruit. The fruit was merely a symbol for the larger picture: God created humans to live in love. They lived in a world devoid of selfishness, as evidenced by the fact that both humans were naked and didn’t even notice. Nudity didn’t register in their thoughts because no one was taking advantage of anyone else – raping, killing, stealing, swindling, and fighting did not exist. But when they were tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit, the serpent did not merely offer a delicious fruit – they were already in a garden full of wonderful fruit.

The real temptation came when the serpent informed the humans that choosing to do something, anything, just for their own pleasure and satisfaction (pure, unhindered selfishness) would allow them to be like gods knowing good and knowing evil. And there’s the catch. They already knew good; it surrounded them. But they had nothing to compare good to. For a comparison, humanity had to literally experience evil. Immediately upon taking this fruit, the reward of their selfishness became apparent. They knew they were naked, and they were afraid. They had experienced evil by acting selfishly, and now they could not stop. It controlled them, and they feared its power. In reaction, Adam selfishly blamed Eve. Eve then selfishly blamed the serpent. Selfishness defined them, and fear consumed them.

God proceeded to curse the serpent and to change childbirth from a joyous occasion to one of pain. Then, God pronounces the most interesting declaration. God told Adam that the earth itself has been cursed on account of humanity’s sin, and God tells Eve that her “desire shall be to [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]” (Genesis 3:16). God never says that he wants this to happen or that he is causing it to happen due to his just and righteous punishment. Rather, God informs the two humans that this is their fate due to their own selfishness. God is actually predicting what form humanity’s selfishness will take. And how right God was! Throughout the centuries, injustice in the form of male domination over women has been rampant. Ironically, its hold on humanity has only been fueled by Christianity’s insistence that God wants this to happen. This was the very sin that started sin. This selfishness (that results in men taking advantage of women emotionally, sexually, and hierarchically) was the exact same selfishness that led the first humans to choose themselves over God by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. How horribly mocking the serpent was when it claimed that selfishness doesn’t bring death (Genesis 3:4-5). No, the first humans and humanity after them were condemned by their own selfishness to a fate worse than death, a life characterized and consumed by unfulfilled and unfulfillable desire, a living death.

Not only do Christians employ the image-of-God-on-men argument to subjugate women, many argue that because the Bible indicates that God is masculine, men should retain and maintain the authority over women. Paul himself seemed to combine these two arguments into one treatise on hierarchical power, arguing that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (I Corinthians 11:3). Paul uses this argument here to defend his position that women should cover their heads to show proper respect for men. God is presented by Paul as the head of Christ, who is the head of the man, who is the head of the woman. In other words, Paul is arguing that only males can be the head of anyone because the image of God is passed through the men.

But when Colossians 1:15 says Christ was the image of the invisible God, should we take that to mean that God looks like a shepherd, has long hair, and has a beard? Obviously not, because the phrase directly after says God is invisible. God is invisible because, as Jesus argued, God is Spirit (John 4:24). The true essence of God is not his visage or appearance; this is no physical description. His true being is spiritual. So when we are created in God’s image, this too is not a physical description, but spiritual. God’s image is clearly stated in I John 4:8: “God is love.” Therefore, being created in that very image, we are created to love like God does. This theme is constant throughout Jesus’ ministry and teachings.

The image of God, pure and unconditional love, has been marred by the evil of choosing and experiencing selfishness. But it would be absurd to argue that Adam looked just like God before sin, and after sin his entire physical form changed. Instead, Adam and Eve both changed on the inside. They suddenly had a break in their relationship with God; they changed spiritually. They were sinful, and fallen, and depraved (Romans 3). That was the difference. There were still remnants of God's image left, but they were completely obscured and scarred by sin. Sin is spiritual, as is God’s image of love.

God is indeed referred to hundreds of times with masculine names and with masculine pronouns such as “he,” “him,” and “his.” God is never given a feminine name, or referred to with feminine pronouns such as “she,” her,” and “hers.” But this does not mean that God is male. The masculine pronouns referring to God in the Bible are always the second, generic sense, referring to both male and female. Just as “Man” has been used for centuries by translators and theologians alike to refer to both men and women, so “He” was used to intimate a genderless, spirit-being named God. To argue that God is male or female is unbiblical. God exists eternally, and in the eternal sphere there is no sexual differentiation (Matthew 22:23-32). God is God. When Moses asked, “Who are you,” God said, “I am that I am!” (Exodus 3:14). Just as the Pharisees and Sadducees argued which husband would get the seven-times-married woman, today Christians argue about God’s gender. In heaven, there is no physical marriage; no sexual gender. Instead, there is a spiritual marriage, and spiritual, genderless beings.

Many Christians might point to the fact that God appears as men throughout the Bible in what are termed Theophanies and Christophanies. But Isaiah presents God as a woman in childbirth (42:14), a mother (66:13), as a pregnant woman (46:3), and as a woman who refuses to forget her child (49:15). In a parable (a picture of truth), Jesus portrayed God as a woman diligently sweeping her house in search of one lost coin (Luke 15:8-10). Jesus, in Matthew 23:37, portrayed himself not only as a female, but a hen. The Holy Spirit appears in a physical form like a dove (Luke 3:22). God would not be insulted by taking the physical form of any of His creation.

Still, Christians will point out that Jesus refers to God as his father many times during his time on earth. But since God is absolutely Spirit, Jesus’ prayer to “Our Father” is not defining God as a human gender. It is rather a picture much like those Isaiah presents. His reference to Father most likely refers to God's providential character that a loving human father emulates. This is definitely one of the closest analogies to God's providential and caring nature. But just as “Father” humanly describes attributes of a divine God, so do other analogies that God gave in Scripture about Himself. To describe the incredible compassion and faithfulness God has for his children, He uses the analogy of a human mother in Isaiah 49:15. Does this mean God is defined as a human mother? No. But His attributes can be enhanced by understanding this image.

Interestingly, most Christians have no problem equating God with the Father that the wayward son ran away from in the Prodigal Son story in Luke 15. But what about the analogy used right before it, of the woman searching diligently for the lost coin? Can we accept that some of God's attributes are described just as thoroughly by a diligent woman as a providential Father? Even more poignantly, not only does God employ women to analogously describe His eternally Spiritual attributes, but He also uses another of His creation: animals. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus describes Himself as a mother hen who wants to gather it's chicks under her wing, but is rejected. He is not saying that His eternal visage is a beak, wings, and eggs. However, Jesus' (and therefore God's) attribute of love for His children and his eternal sadness when his children reject him is well described by a mother hen. The analogy of a dove was used by God to describe Holy Spirit. Those watching said Holy Spirit looked like a dove. Does this mean that Holy Spirit's eternal form is that of a dove? No. But perhaps a dove describes Holy Spirit well.

Every physical or human quality used to describe God is merely an attempt to bring God slightly more within our grasp of understanding. As a Spirit, He does not have a body and therefore does not have hands or feet or a nose or any of the “bodily” qualities that we so often refer to. He may choose to show Himself in that way to help us understand Him better, but he is not limited to a male form, a Jewish form, or even a human form. He is a spirit. To worship God as a man completely disregards Numbers 23:19, where God clearly states that “God is not man.” God wanted to distance Himself and His character from man’s propensity to lie and change his mind. God is, however, much more and much better than a man – He is the essence of the opposite: Truth! Therefore, to say that God’s eternal character is masculine is to indict Him for lying and changing His mind. So saying that “God cannot be a woman” is partially true – God cannot be defined as a human female. However, with the same respect, God cannot be defined as a human male. But God does indeed associate with both male and female qualities, thus describing Himself in human terms to help us humans better understand His completely divinely Spiritual nature.

Any arguments for man’s inherent superiority result in faulty reasoning, further selfishness, and continued subjugation of women. The fallen nature of humanity is shown most clearly in God’s prediction that men would subjugate women, literally reigning over them. History shows, once again, that God sees and predicts the future accurately. It would seem appropriate that those who hate God and his essence of love should embrace the definition of sin; selfishness. But the unfortunate irony of our depraved world shows us that the most ardent advocates of the curse of sin are those who claim to be God’s children. These are the same Christians who have perverted Christ’s message of unconditional love into a call to war. They transform Christ’s saving sacrifice of himself, the ultimate act of unselfishness, into a creed and a law and a noose. The very selfishness that Adam and Eve chose has come full circle; many of today’s God-followers claim that selfishness as truth. They have twisted the essence of God’s character from love to selfishness, which is the polar opposite of love. To these Christians Isaiah (5:20) pronounces his most profound warning: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” For, truly, this is when the anger of the Lord burns most fiercely.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Destroyed for Homosexuality?

Many Christians believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for the sin and acceptance of homosexuality (Stewart). However, a careful reading of Scripture undermines this explanation. In Genesis 13:13, when Sodom is first condemned, Scripture merely says Sodom was wicked and great sinners against God. Later, in 18:20, it says that Sodom’s and Gomorrah’s sin was very grave. So we know the sin was really bad. But was it homosexuality?


In the original Sodom/Gomorrah account, the only reference to sexuality was that the men wanted Lot to give up the angels so they could “know” them. Lot responded by offering his virgin daughters to the men, which they rejected and tried to force the door. There are questions as to the men’s intentions, and some suggest that the men were merely concerned with a violation of the city’s vicious monetary regulations about visitors and guests based on verse 9. Either reading inserts preconceived views on the passage, which is not entirely clear either way. I personally believe the men wanted to rape the angels, based on Scripture’s often sexual connotation of the word “know.” But this reading absolutely cannot and does not support that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality. Why?

Rape is forcible and unquestionably a violation of another’s rights, freedoms, and privacy (Rape). Therefore, even if the men of Sodom were intending to rape the angels, this does not at all bring homosexuality itself into question. But even their intentions are irrelevant! Verse 13 explicitly states that God had already decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah – this was why He sent the angels in the first place! So, based upon the Genesis account, Sodom’s sin for which they were punished could not have been their (questionable) desire to rape the angels.

There are many other references to Sodom and Gomorrah throughout Scripture. Abraham wanted God to spare the city, but God challenged Abraham to find even five righteous people, but Abraham couldn’t. Isaiah rails against his culture, likening them to Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they worshipped false idols, brought sin into the temples, and neglected the poor. The solution for their sin was to learn to “do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause” (1:9-17). Ironically, “sodomy” is not even mentioned. Sodom’s sin is mentioned in Isaiah 3, 13, Jeremiah 23, 49, 50, Lamentations 4, Ezekiel 16, Amos 4, and Zephaniah 2, and the sin most often mentioned was their “pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy, they were haughty” and this was an abomination to God (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Jesus invoked Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of greed and neglect (Matthew 10, 11, Mark 10, 17). Paul showcases Sodom and Gomorrah in his argument for righteousness (Romans 9) and in his defense of God’s mercy in delivering Lot (2 Peter 2:7).

The only passage that mentions sexual impurity is in Jude, saying Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire” (1:7). The first clause “indulged in sexual immorality” is contingent upon the next; it is further defined by the second clause, “and pursued unnatural desire.” However, this is perhaps an over-simplified translation. The original text has “strange flesh.” The word strange, in Greek, means “different.” The word flesh, in Greek, literally means “meat” or “body.” This, coupled with the fact that they were “pursuing” it, lends itself to this interpretation: they had an unnatural infatuation with sexuality, and pursued it in any form. The object of their sexuality was unimportant to them as long as they gratified their sexual desires; they were overcome and controlled by their sexual desires. This interpretation would coincide with Paul’s warning not to be controlled by anything other than the Spirit “of love” (Ephesians 5:18), warnings throughout Scripture against greed and uncontrolled desire, and the Bible’s emphasis on monogamy and faithfulness.

What is absolutely clear is Sodom’s greed in relation to money and possessions to the exclusion and neglect of the poor and needy (Genesis 14, Isaiah 1, 3, 13, Ezekiel 16:49). So it would only make sense to add sexual greed to Sodom’s and Gomorrah’s indictment. Sodom’s and Gomorrah’s worship of their own desires and interests is a form of idolatry, which they’re condemned for in Isaiah 1:9-17. All of Sodom’s and Gomorrah’s sins could be summarized in this manner: They did not care about others; they were concerned only about themselves and their own gratification of their desires. According to Jesus (Matthew 22:37-40), love is the greatest commandment ever uttered. All others stem from and are subservient to this law, the law of love. And love defines God (1 John 4:8). So sin, generally defined as “contrary to God,” must necessarily be defined as un-love. Therefore, when Sodom and Gomorrah are consistently held up as one of history’s most infamous examples of sin and debauchery, one can only assume they were therefore the most infamous example of un-love.

Jesus’ focus was on serving others, and James says (1:27) that true and complete religion (service to God) is helping the poor, needy, and widows. As Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah embodied anti-service to others, sinfulness, and un-love, then homosexuality could not have been the focus of this story. The only clear conclusion we can draw from this story is this: to truly serve God, we must serve others selflessly, sacrificially, and in complete love, looking only for their good. Sodom and Gomorrah have long been used by many Christians to justify intolerance towards homosexuals. These Christians’ usage of this example turns it on its head and preaches the exact opposite. They’ve taken the heart out of Christ’s message of love and used His illustration to fuel their un-love. The Christ they claim to follow has made it crystal clear (using their favorite example) that their suppression of those for whom Christ died is absolutely sinful. And this sin, not homosexuality, was the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.





Works Cited

David, Stewart. "Sodom and Gomorrah". Jesus-Is-Savior. 04/27/2010 .

ESV. Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2002. (All Bible references are from the ESV.)

"Rape - Criminal Law". Find Law - Thompson/Reuters. 04/27/2010 http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html.

The 1960s: A Fair and Balanced Look

Jacob Oblak


Glenn Marvel

The US in the 1960s

5 May, 2010



The 1960s: A Fair and Balanced Look

DeGroot’s emphasis in his book “The Sixties Unplugged: A kaleidoscopic history of a disorderly decade” is unique (The Sixties Unplugged, p. 500). He argues that the Sixties “brought flowers, music, love, and good times. It also brought hatred, murder, greed, dangerous drugs, needless deaths, ethnic cleansing, neocolonialist exploitation, sound bite politics, sensationalism, a warped sense of equality, a bizarre notion of freedom, the decline of liberalism, and the end of innocence.” DeGroot is emphasizing the fact that although the Sixties have been idealized and romanticized, many negative attitudes and circumstances also occurred. And this is definitely true. No time period in history has ever been perfect or perfectly represented by historians. There has always been bias, always will be, and, to be fair, one must take the good with the bad.

One thing that was definite was this: war was a huge issue in the 1960s. Many were disillusioned with the government and its appeals to force, and many protested and rallied against the government. Dwight D. Eisenhower most likely played a large part in setting the stage for the 1960s. He had threatened China with nuclear weapons to gain a ceasefire in Korea and was a well-known five star general in World War II. His was an interesting presidency, which although peaceful, prepared the path for those to come. He enlarged social security, competed with the Soviet Union in space, and maintained pressure on them while engaging in the Cold War. His Eisenhower Doctrine, stating that America would “prepared to use armed force ... [to stop] aggression from any country controlled by international communism,” was an interesting spin off Roosevelt’s “walk softly and carry a big stick.”

Kennedy’s election was close, and showed that the ideals of the American people were shifting slowly but surely. More and more American’s were favoring civil rights legislation, welfare/social security, and generally more liberal candidates as evidenced by Congress’s democratic majority. Many promising factors were evident: more people than ever were making livable wage, unemployment had decreased, business was prospering, and the Cuban missile crisis had been averted.

There were notable and extreme exceptions to this change, however. Although the sixties began quite hopefully and economically promising, many Americans were completely opposed to the direction their country was taking. The Ku Klux Klan saw a resurgence in its membership and activities. Governors in southern states fought with the federal government on the issue of state’s rights concerning civil rights, from 1957’s “Little Rock Nine” incident to “The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” in 1963. Unfortunately, much violence occurred, most of it directed towards the civil rights movement and its rallies. Many civil rights demonstrators and even workers were beaten by police and others, and much was caught on TV.

Kennedy, as did his predecessor Eisenhower, used federal influence and force to implement Congress’ and the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning civil rights. John F. Kennedy embodies DeGroot’s thesis. Kennedy is remembered by most for his support and galvanization of civil rights. He also distinguished himself in many ways. He is the first Roman Catholic president, the only to have won a Pulitzer Prize, and he dealt with an incredible amount of national and international crises during his three year presidency. Those included the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Space Race, and as mentioned before, the Civil Rights Movement. Shortly before he was assassinated, he ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops from Vietnam.

Kennedy’s assassination rocked the nation. The youngest president to die in office, Kennedy’s motto “ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country” came to life in Kennedy’s death. Controversy remains concerning Kennedy’s death. Martin Luther King’s and Robert F. Kennedy’s assassinations also rocked America, but to a lesser degree. Kennedy was and is beloved by much of America. But the image that persists of Kennedy is his likeability, national acclaim, and positive contributions.

While he did play a large part in these issues, as DeGroot argues, Kennedy’s legacy has been romanticized to the point that many do not understand his flaws as well. He bought many copies of his own autobiography to make it appear to be selling well, perhaps in an effort to appear more credible. He and his Federal Bureau of Investigation (headed by J. Edgar Hoover) severely overreacted to the threat of communism by phone taps on Martin Luther King Jr.’s home. This not-so-subtle violation of the Fourth Amendment brought King under the close scrutiny of the government. Interestingly, Kennedy was as much a womanizer as was King. While this surveillance unearthed King’s sexual infidelity, it failed to show any communist ties or any illegality whatsoever.

Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s successor, took office when Kennedy died. He won the next election and made many positive changes that affected our nation’s progress toward equality. Johnson’s legacy remains far less known than Kennedy’s even though Johnson perhaps contributed more and implemented many of Kennedy’s own ideas. Congress continued its liberal trend and Johnson enjoyed its support. More riots and racism erupted during Johnson’s presidency, and he dealt with it well. Johnson even nominated the first African American Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall.

Johnson’s perhaps highest and most lasting goals confronted poverty at all levels and in all races. He built upon the already strong civil rights base and faced poverty head-on. His accomplishments include (but are not limited to) the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 24th amendment, Medicare, Medicaid, the 25th amendment, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Before his presidency, his Congressional political clout helped secure the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960. Johnson’s Great Society was an amazing dream that captured the hearts of the American people, and garnered the support of the largely Democratic Congress.

Helping us understand exactly where LBJ was coming from, his Public Papers included an outline of his incredible goal, which was “to shatter forever not only the barriers of law and public practice, but the walls which bound the condition of many by the color of his skin. To dissolve, as best we can, the antique enmities of the heart which diminish the holder, divide the great democracy, and do wrong — great wrong — to the children of God.” This goal is worthy of any support, and it promotes justice wholeheartedly.

Lyndon B. Johnson’s legacy could be characterized as the polar opposite of John F. Kennedy’s. While JFK is romanticized for his great accomplishments, LBJ is demonized for his worst choice: the Vietnam War. True, the Vietnam War was a black mark for his presidency and for America as a result. Unfortunately for America, Johnson decided, immediately after Kennedy’s death, to rescind Kennedy’s withdrawal from Vietnam order. Johnson’s pursuit of the Vietnam War fueled America’s deep animosity towards government, war, and federal power, and gave justification to much of the hatred.

However, we can remember Johnson also for his undying commitment to education, which he believed held the cure to ignorance, hatred, and poverty. Unfortunately for Johnson, his Vietnam War obsession led to his fading from political power and clout. This also led to a decline in support of his Great Society goals, dreams, and ideals. Johnson’s one big mistake is why the Great Society crashed and burned and why his legacy is tainted, misremembered, and vilified.

There was much that went wrong in the 1960s. Included in any list would be overuse and abuse of drugs, “free sex,” and rebellion from government and authority in general. A reaction to these problems was the start of a new conservative movement that attempted to bring state’s rights, anti big government, and Christian morals back into the public eye and that eventually but partially enshrined capitalism and the American Dream into the Christian message. This movement was spearheaded by William Buckley, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, and eventually Ronald Reagan. In general, they opposed the Great Society and its enlargement of federal government, and advocated a return to small government, big business, and religion.

Nixon’s Watergate scandal played a huge part in galvanizing this growing conservative religious movement. The nation had had enough of scandal and lies and wanted honesty, truth, and morality. This enabled the leaders of the new conservative movement to claim morals as their main platform upon which to contend politically. Religion became a staple in political discussion, and the political pendulum swung back towards the conservative right.

The 1960s encompassed both positive change and negative reactions. To fairly represent this decade, both the historian and learner must understand and include both good and bad in any discussion of the 1960s. DeGroot’s emphasis was on how much has been overlooked. His work is impressive and intriguing. So we must focus on the facts and arrange our ideas accordingly. Fairness is essential to understanding history, because without it we are left with only opinions.

Freedom of Speech - Essential to Free Society

Freedom of Speech:

Essential to Free Society











Jacob Oblak















Seminar in Educational Inquiry

Professor Genese Grill

April 21, 2010

Thesis and Outline



Thesis: America’s departure from the freedom of speech in favor of hate speech crime legislation and corporate speech necessitates an even more rigorous defense of free speech.



1. Hate Speech

A. First Amendment

B. Founding Fathers and Freedom

C. Forcing Morality

D. From Speech to Thought Crimes

E. Feeling Good

2. Corporate Speech

A. Individual vs. Corporation

B. Free Speech vs. Corporations

C. People’s money vs. Corporations

D. Oligarchy and Corporations



























Jacob Oblak

Genese Grill

Educational Inquiry

04/21/2010





Freedom of Speech – Essential to Free Society





America has many values gleaned from both the past and the present. America contains much diversity of race, religion, and lifestyle. Yet there is one bedrock principle that precedes any of this diversity: the freedom of speech. Without this freedom of speech, true democracy would fall, and with it all other freedoms. Today, two ways in which freedom of speech is undermined are manifested with widespread support of hate speech legislation and the current Supreme Court’s handling of corporations’ rights. These disturbing trends result in America’s departure from the freedom of speech in favor of hate speech crime legislation and corporate speech and necessitate an even more rigorous defense of free speech from those who wish to remain free.

Arguing that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected Whitney’s right to teach syndicalism and retain membership in the Communist Labor Party, Supreme Court Justice Brandeis articulated one of the most rigorous defenses of free speech:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government… They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. (U.S. Supreme Court)

Brandeis argues brilliantly that America cannot enjoy its political freedom without the basic right to free speech. Free speech is protected against government intrusion in any circumstance except slander or sedition. Brandeis defines Miss Whitney’s felony as essentially teaching syndicalism (Whitney), which “is a radical political movement that advocates bringing industry and government under the control of labor unions,” according to Princeton University (WordNet). However, the Supreme Court decided in 1927 that individuals are free to advocate anything they wish as long as they refrain from sedition and slander.

Deborah M. Galvin, behavioral science PHD and director of the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, might disagree. She, and Many Americans with her, argues that our government must regulate speech so as to eliminate hurtful speech (Galvin). And to some extent, she is correct. If by hurting others with words she means slander (falsehood that injures), sedition (advocating violent overthrow of government), or advocating violence towards others in just about any way, she’s right - throw the book at them and bring the law after them. The Constitution prohibits those activities. But if a Ku Klux Klansman wants to stand on the street corner and yell about supposed white supremacy, one can choose not to walk down that street; one can choose not to listen; and one can choose to blare music over his insanity – personal rights have not been breached. His words could offend if one chose to listen to him. Even if the listener was white, what the KKK person would say that about fellow brothers and sisters would still hurt. But again, he has neither violated any freedoms or rights, nor committed slander, sedition, or advocating violence.

While at first glance hate speech may appear to be slander, this is not the case. Slander is legally defined as “A false defamation … which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed (Lectric).” This is the legal definition of hate speech:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

(Hate Speech)

And there are two major differences. Hate speech is simply verbally attacking someone's social or ethnic group. Slander is false defamation that results in injury. The first major difference is that slander is, by definition, false. The attack the slanderer makes is inherently, intrinsically false. The second major difference is that slander results in injury. Therefore, slander is not equal to hate speech. Slander is legally prohibited; hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

America's apparent disregard for our first amendment rights is scary. Most of the founding fathers refused to agree to the Constitution until it was agreed that there would be a Bill of Rights, and New Hampshire and North Carolina refused to sign it until the Bill of Rights was actually added (Constitution). The founders declared (in the Declaration of Independence) “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” “Only among these” means that there are more. In fact, according to historians, John Dickinson, among others, refused to even sign the Declaration of Independence because they hadn't written out what exactly those rights were. He wanted a Bill of Rights before he'd sign (Bloy).

Today, many have forgotten what it was like to not be guaranteed free speech – about anything. Once government limits free speech in one area, then restrictions will spread to other areas like a cancer. Once government says the Ku Klux Klan member cannot speak his mind on the street corner in public, then it must also ban any books or websites that spread his viewpoint. Limits will not stop at racist speech – limitation will stretch to other places no one thought it would, or would want it to. Once free speech is taken away, it will be almost impossible to regain it.

A notable example of free speech gone hateful is in Westboro Baptist Church’s protests. According to the Anti Defamation League, the members of Fred Phelps’ family and other members of his church protest at a variety of functions, including funerals, weddings, schools, twitter headquarters, and generally anything involving homosexuals. They claim to be Christian, Baptist, Calvinistic, and preach the Bible. Yet they’ve been captured on TV, YouTube, and documentaries screaming and swearing at anyone who comes within earshot, raising signs that say: “God hates fags,” “God hates America,” “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “God is your enemy,” “9-11 a gift from God,” “Don’t pray for the USA.” They believe that military deaths in Iraq are God’s punishment for America’s acceptance of homosexuality (Westboro Baptist Church).

According to CNN, Westboro was sued in 2007 by the Snyder family, after Westboro protested at the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son Matthew who died in Iraq. Originally, the Snyders won the case and were awarded about eleven million dollars, which was later reduced to five million. On federal appeal, the decision was reversed, and the Snyders were told to pay court fees, totaling more than sixteen thousand dollars. The US Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear the case (Grinberg).

Westboro’s actions are indeed heinous. Many Americans, if not most, would agree that the Supreme Court should rule against them. This, however, does not take into consideration the First Amendment, which explicitly states that there can be no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Westboro has not employed violence, and have merely expressed in writing and in speech their views. The Supreme Court cannot rule against them without overturning the First Amendment. A free society must, on occasion, permit what it hates in order to maintain its freedom.

Some get so caught up in the fact that Westboro members are admittedly intending to hurt the feelings of others that many rush to limit the speech of those who are abusing their freedom to speak. However, in doing so, they fail to see where this inevitably leads our nation: a 1984 society. If calling a colored person a racist name is illegal, why isn't calling a white person a name? Why isn't saying Westboro's members are closed-minded bigots not wrong? They are, after all! We must understand that calling Westboro members closed-minded bigots is no less insulting than calling a colored person a racist name. Somehow America has justified one and not the other. Social norms dictate to the majority of Americans that racism is wrong, and it is. But unfortunately many try to fight it on a political front by making laws against it. Any insult to anyone is equal to racist hate speech. For instance, when people call G. W. Bush an idiot, they are just as guilty of hate speech as the racist or homophobic guy down the street. They cannot limit his free speech while allowing themselves more freedom. It will not always stay that way. If those with whom society disagrees are not free to speak their minds, then eventually society’s freedoms will be limited to the same degree. In other words, American society cannot have its cake and eat it too. Those who wish to censor the hateful speech they find abhorrent will eventually lose their own freedom to speak when the power decides their speech is abhorrent. As Charles Levendosky, a well-known poet and writer, articulated, “Those who censor others, eventually censor themselves…. As the great First Amendment scholar Alexander Meiklejohn put it … “To be afraid of any idea is to be unfit for self-government” (qtd. Williams 174-175).

The only solution for hate speech is more speech, reasonable speech. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it” (Jefferson). In Westboro’s case, many different methods have been employed. Counter-protests have been staged across the nation in defiance of Westboro’s hatred, and as shown in the news, Westboro’s hate has been outstaged and silenced by loud singing (Kreiger), revving motorcycles (Donovan), and hysterically funny nonsense signs (Stopera). These groups apply their own freedom of speech in a positive way, presenting viewers with an alternative to Westboro’s speech. Both forms of speech are legally valid, and as a free society we must be free to think and believe as we wish. The only logical extension from freedom of thought is the freedom to express that thought.

Defenders of hate speech legislation could argue that hate speech should be illegal because it crosses the line between negativity of some thing and some one. To clarify, they could argue that it’s ok to voice a negative view about a subject, but not about a person. However, to outlaw hate speech on the grounds that it’s negative towards another person is hypocritical. By definition, vocal disapproval of the person employing hate speech is the very “crime” the first person committed. In other words, by saying, “you shouldn't be hateful” to the man who said “you shouldn't live a life of homosexuality,” they commit the very act they abhor.

Besides, if someone said to a homosexual that being homosexual is sinful, you can bet they're going to understand that I disapprove of their lifestyle – it's now personal. There's no way to express that opinion without it becoming personal the second it is voiced. The very fact that he believes homosexuality sinful means that he also believes that the homosexual is wrong for practicing it. There's no way around it. Granted, believing that homosexuality is wrong does not preclude continuing to love homosexuals in spite of disagreement. But legally there's no difference. Free speech doesn't stop at opinions of lifestyles in a vacuum – it applies to opinions about people, to people, and with people. Freedom of speech is very personal. And freedom of speech is absolutely necessary to maintaining freedom itself.

The bottom line is this: a free society cannot censor its citizens’ speech –“censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime,” as Supreme Court Justice Stewart dissented in 1965. To censor is to relinquish freedom. The Founders initiated a free society based firmly on a government prohibited from passing any law infringing upon its citizens’ freedom of thought, speech, and expression.

America faces enough of these attacks on freedom of speech. However, adding to the frenzy, freedom of speech is also being assaulted by the current Supreme Court’s errant views and rulings regarding corporations’ rights. The Supreme Court, in January, decided to allow corporations to use their treasury funds to run political influence campaigns through mailings, TV ads, and numerous other avenues. Many, like the president of the League of Women Voters in New Jersey Anne Maiese, believe this opens wide the gates for corporate manipulation of federal elections and democracy can now be bought and sold (Maiese). This situation will play out in upcoming elections, and the extent and scope of this decision will be obvious. Special interest groups with billions of dollars, according to this decision, my now heavily advertise and promote to their advantage. While consistent with his usual over-the-top fashion, Keith Olbermann succinctly outlined the probable if not inherent outcomes of this decision. He argued that in spite of the Supreme Court’s insistence that their decision upheld free speech, the voice of the individual, and therefore the voice of the people, can and will be smothered, successfully eliminating freedom of speech itself (Olbermann).

Anna Burger, America’s Secretary Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, goes even further:

There can be no doubt: The voice of everyday working Americans in the political process will be muted. How can they compete for airtime with the deep pockets of multinational corporations? The court's decision has said loud and clear that Mr. Smith has no business in Washington -- that seat's been sponsored by Wal-Mart.

(Burger, qtd in Who)

Even if freedom of speech were not under attack with this ruling, it would be a cause of great concern to the safety of the democracy of the United States. Most of us have heard the old saying that “politics follows the Golden Rule...those who have the gold, rule,” but this decision by our Supreme Court takes it to a whole new level. Allowing corporations, usually owned and run by one person or one small group of persons, to spend however much they want essentially allows them to buy votes. The riches of these corporations, derived from the public’s pockets, can now be spent to further the interests of big business and big government. Consumers, who must spend their money to buy necessities like food and clothing, now must stand helplessly watching as those corporations use their money funding political campaigns the consumers may or may not favor. In effect, with our money go our vote and our voice, exiting the hands of the people and landing squarely in the lap of the executive upper class on Wall Street.

But in the end, it’s really not even about anyone’s preferences. This decision affects the very freedom of speech the Supreme Court claimed to defend. With this decision, the individual’s freedom of speech is now limited by the fact that he’s only an individual. He’s still allowed to speak, but it's roughly the equivalent of telling him that he’s allowed to voice his opinion – and then turning music up to 300 decibels and starting the vacuum! The individual’s voice, albeit free to speak, carries no weight and therefore cannot affect any change because it cannot be heard. According to Russ Feingold, senator from Wisconsin, “this decision gives a green light to corporations to unleash their massive coffers on the political system. The profits of Fortune 500 companies in 2008 alone were 350 times the entire amount spent on the last presidential election” (Feingold, qtd in Who). Suddenly the corporations’ "freedom of speech" (run by a select few with the power, control, and money) carries millions of times more weight (in American dollars) than does the average person’s freedom. So by multiplying the effect of the corporations’ “free” speech, the Court has divided the individual’s by the same number, seriously diminishing his ability to have any effect at all. And individuals’ free speech is not alone in its suffering. “The voices of candidates and political parties just got much quieter” as well, according to Ben Ginsberg, national counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaigns of 2000 and 2004 (Ginsberg, qtd in Who).

Therefore, while claiming to defend free speech, this Supreme Court decision has upended the balance of free speech in favor of Wall Street and the big corporations who run it. The Supreme Court has severely missed the point by deciding that corporations’ voices should be allowed to drown out the people’s voice. This decision reeks of oligarchy, promises even more future political greed, and guarantees that politicians and votes will be bought and pocketed like never before. And the recipient of this suppression of free speech will be, as always, the people.

Today’s society attacks freedom of speech in many ways. Both legislation prohibiting hate speech and allowing corporations individual free speech rights undermine America’s freedoms. This dangerous trend can only be diverted by the people for whom the Constitution was written. We, the American people, have the incredible responsibility to protect freedom of speech at any cost – other freedoms exist only because the people exercised their free speech. Free speech precludes other freedoms, and therefore must be protected at any cost.





















Works Cited













Bloy, Marjie. "John Dickinson, who refused to Sign". A Web of English History. 04/26/2010 .

"The Constitution". The White House. 04/21/2010 .

Donovan, Gilbert. “The Patriot Guard Vs. Westboro Baptist Church: A Contrasting Religious Twist”. Associated Content. 04/20/2010 .

Galvin, Deborah M. “Hate Speech - Violence & Substance Abuse Prevention.” 2004. Online Powerpoint. Samha.gov. 26 April 2010. www.workplace.samhsa.gov/Prevention/Pages/Docs/hate-speech.ppt.

"GINZBURG V. UNITED STATES, 383 U. S. 463 (1966)". US Supreme Court Center. 04/21/2010 .

Grinberg, Emanuella. “Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs”. CNN. 4/20/2010 .

"Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition". US Legal Definitions. 04/26/2010 .

Jefferson, Thomas. “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson”. Princeton University. 04/20/2010 .

Kreiger, Lisa. “Palo Alto school greets protesters with song, signs”. Mercury News. 04/20/2010 .

“The Lectric Law Library”. 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon. 04/20/2010 .

Maiese, Anne. "Supreme Court Decision Endorses Corporate Manipulation of Election Outcomes". League of Women Voters in New Jersey. 04/26/2010 .

Olbermann, Keith. "Olbermann: U.S. government for sale". MSNBC. 04/26/2010 .

Stopera, Matt. “The 30 Best Anti-Westboro Baptist Church Protest Signs”. Buzz Feed. 04/20/2010 .

"U.S. Supreme Court: Whitney v People of State of California , 274 U.S. 357 (1927)". FindLaw: For Legal Professionals. 04/21/2010 .

"Who is helped, or hurt, by the Citizens United decision?". The Washington Post. 04/26/2010 .

"Westboro Baptist Church ". Anti Defamation League. 04/20/2010 .

"Witney v. California". Cornell University Law School. 04/27/2010 .

Williams, Mary. Hate Groups: Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2004.

"WordNet Search - 3.0". Princeton University. 04/27/2010 http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=syndicalism.