First They Came for the Chicken...

                The 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees, among other things, the rights of free speech and religion.  The reason these are in the first group of amendments that can never be removed concerns both the circumstances surrounding the revolution and the underlying philosophy of the founding fathers.  The Declaration of Independence pointed out that there are certain rights people have simply because we are alive.  Jefferson called them “inalienable” rights given to us by “our Creator.”  While the right to worship, or not worship, as we please, and the right to speak our minds are not included in that document, they were the first to be included when a constitution was drafted.  Again, these first 10 amendments, called the Bill of Rights, can never be altered or removed.

                I have noticed from time to time that Americans are often confused about what these freedoms entail.  We all realize there are certain restrictions on both of these freedoms, restrictions the founding fathers would likely have heartily approved, had they considered some of the implications.  One classic exception is maliciously yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater.  Liable and slander are other restrictions on free speech.  Religions that result in harm or death to others are restricted.  More controversial, in my opinion, are the zoning restrictions placed on places of worship.  The point is these small restrictions were likely not matters the writers of these amendments were concerned with.  The historical context points to a government that had been repressing any religion not officially sanctioned by the current monarch.  The historical context included the suppressing of ideas contrary to the government regime.  There is no place in our legal documents where my right criticize other people’s actions is restricted.  There is no place where my right to support those being criticized is restricted.  In fact, those rights are guaranteed.  What is forbidden is the government’s restriction of people speaking their minds.

                This is why there is a great danger in some of the events of recent days in our country.  Freedoms are seldom removed from a people for fear of open rebellion.  Instead, they are eroded over time, like the formation of a great canyon beginning with a small stream.  People don’t get too upset about small changes, and may actually applaud the gradual disappearance of certain freedoms because they don’t directly affect them.  A well-known German theologian, Martin Niemöller, expressed it something like this, “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.  Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”  As much as certain people and certain ideas irritate and offend me, I must stand up for the right of people to worship and to speak their minds.

                Currently, the CEO of the Chic-Fil-A company, Dan Cathy, is the target of some hateful activities.  He mentioned in an interview that he believes in traditional marriage and rejects the idea that marriage can be between two people of the same gender.  It is his right to hold and express this point of view.  This opinion has resulted in people making many hateful comments about him.  That’s their right.  Some people have decided they will never patronize any Chic-Fil-A franchises.  That’s their right.  Chicago alderman Choco “Joe” Moreno wants to deny Chic-Fil-A a building permit because of Mr. Cathy’s expressed opinion.  That is not his right.  Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston says he will keep the company out of his city.  That is not his right.  As long as the company does not discriminate against anyone in hiring or the public it serves, Mr. Cathy retains his right to free speech, religion, and business enterprise.  All Americans, even those who disagree with Mr. Cathy, should vehemently oppose any governmental punishments as a result of his exercise of his rights under the 1^st Amendment.  Otherwise, they may one day lament, “First they came for the Christians…”