D L Johnson, click
here to update your pages on AuthorsDen.
Blogs by D L Johnson
My Line of Sight 4/4/2018 5:25:42 PM
This blog first appeared on blogspot.com My Line of Sight
Spending a few Minutes with Our Constitution: Part three
Amendment One
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 assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Those are powerful words, freedom to worship without government rule. Freedom of speech. Freedom to assemble and freedom to petition the government and to be able to speak your mind without fear of being shut up because of what you said.
I don’t know if the founding fathers had a crystal ball in 1791 to investigate what life would be like in 2018, but if they did, I wonder what they would think about the first amendment now.
On one hand I think they would smile. Just look around you and you can find a bountiful supply of religious expressions; Christians of many varieties, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and many more. Some are ultra conservative. Some are middle of the road in their beliefs, and others are progressive believers of the same God as the moderates and conservatives. No matter what your religious belief, you are free to worship as you please as stated in the U. S. Constitution.
On the issue of speech, I’m not sure where the founders would fall. The one thing about freedom of speech that I think we forget to remember, is that the right for Martin Luther King Jr. to say, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Dr. King’s statement Is no more valid or invalid as the words of David Duke when he said, "Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests."
Dr. King’s statement promotes peace, love and unity, while David Duke’s statement promotes racism, bigotry and hate. As much as we would love to try to silence the one statement that goes against our collective beliefs, we can’t, based on the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution because they are equal under the law. The only exceptions to this rule is enforced is when that speech incites riots to the point of violence.
That could be a bitter pill for us to swallow when we realize that the one that whom promoted peace, love and understanding as the man whom spews hate and violence, but for democracy to continue to flourish, we the people must trust the system. If we don’t trust the system, democracy flounders and ultimately fails.
Before that happens, I believe there is a possible solution; it’s called conversation. You may say, “I tried that once and it turned into a shouting match.” Before that happens, I suggest you try a few simple ideas. The first idea is to pick your battles and the second is to have an agenda. Let’s consider both plans.
While stratagizing your upcoming meeting, choose just a few topics. If you are the liberal progressive, like me, and your opponent is far right, conservative, like my neighbor, remember, your objective is to ask good questions, speak in a thoughtful tone, not a combative tone and leave enough space between responses. Most of all, do not convince yourself that your goal is to convert your friend to your cause. Finally, remember, you are looking for areas of common ground, not more divisiveness.
I mentioned my neighbor and in 2016 we had just such a conversation.
It was a Saturday morning and we were enjoying the Saturday morning coffee klatch that takes place in our retirement community. My neighbor came in and sat at the same table I was at when we started talking about the upcoming Presidential election. My neighbor, a friendly guy was not shy about expressing his conservative views and in turn, I was ready to respond with my thoughts. This back and forth exchange went on for about thirty minutes, and we found common ground on a few ideas, when everything went horribly wrong. A third person joined the conversation and she had no idea what we had discussed prior to her arrival. In thirty seconds she offered angry and venomous rants which nullified any progress that we may have made. Based on that experience, I recommend that if more than two people are involved in the conversation, lay down some ground rules before you begin. Sadly, other than saying hello to one another in passing, we have not resumed our conversation, and I would dearly love to do that, because I believe that conversations done effectively will lead to a better understanding of those around us and enhances the value of our Constitution.
I am convinced that for democracy to survive three things must exist; our Constitution exists because it is a continual work in progress, as life moves far too quickly for us to keep up with, we must be ready to amend the Constitution as we must move with the times we live in. America continues to be a melting pot of diverse cultures and beliefs. These newcomers must be embraced and not left behind in our mutual growth as a nation. Finally, we must be willing to listen to those whose ideas differ from ours, as the founding fathers wrote the Constitution based on their collective experiences living under tyrannical rule before coming to America, our new citizens bring valued experiences from the past.
The first amendment lays the groundwork for the shaping of democracy, and for today, that is my line of sight.
