To the editor: Contributing author Josh Hammer’s op-ed asserting that the perform of free speech is within the service of fact is a masterclass in hypocrisy and ignorance, beginning with: “The foremost objective of politics, since time immemorial, is to greatest pursue and understand the widespread good” (“Free speech is effective, however solely when it leads us towards the reality,” Feb. 13). Good for whom?
Since time immemorial, political techniques have discriminated in opposition to some over others, habitually utilizing violence to implement that discrimination, with the present administration being probably the most vivid real-time instance.
Subsequent, “‘Blessings’ are realized … by working towards biblical faith.” The assertion is a high quality instance of free speech, however has zero grounding in both the Structure or actuality. Most international locations blessed with the best requirements of well being and well-being train these virtues with none established faith.
Better of all, Hammer ought to heed his personal phrases about Professor Alan Dershowitz: “The professor is entitled to his opinion, however it’s at all times the reality or falsehood of the matter that we should care most about.”
Hammer betrays his argument along with his personal phrases about Charlie Kirk, who seen “gender ideology as irreconcilable with actuality” when, actually, the scientific proof detailing the complexity of gender range is well-established. If Hammer cares a lot about fact, he would honor the reciprocal relationship between fact and information.
In the long run, free speech is exactly that: freed from conformity to anybody’s definition of it. You just about get to say no matter you darn nicely please, however saying it doesn’t make it so. Hammer’s total op-ed is proof of that.
Rev. Gary M. Keene, Ventura
..
To the editor: I really feel that Hammer has a flawed understanding of the context through which the First Modification to the Structure was written.
By no means in my readings on the Constitutional Conference and its aftermath have I seen proof that the intent of the clause on faith was to make “working towards biblical faith” (Hammer’s phrase) a mandatory requirement for fulfillment in attaining “widespread good and the reality.” The opening assertion of the First Modification, actually, hinges completely on “institution” — in different phrases, faith sponsored by and tied to the federal government.
As we all know from our historical past of colonial America, many colonists have been motivated by a need to be separate from the Church of England, in addition to from different government-backed religions. The modification’s intent, subsequently, was to stop non secular coercion of any variety. That’s the actual reverse of what Hammer would have us suppose.
Garry Herron, Seal Seaside
..
To the editor: Hammer makes the error of complicated fact with perception. In his view, “the reality” means abortion is homicide and gender ideology is “irreconcilable with actuality.” However these aren’t truths. They’re beliefs, which he can freely espouse due to the First Modification. Simply as I can consider and freely espouse my view that abortion isn’t homicide and gender ideology correctly acknowledges that gender isn’t rigidly divided between female and male, however exists on a spectrum of traits from each.
The free speech clause has nothing to do with the pursuit of fact, however in defending the proper of perception for everybody, regardless of how abhorrent some might discover it. And real truths are revealed by scientific inquiry, not by studying the Bible or Quran or different non secular textual content written lengthy earlier than people understood the workings of the universe.
Dennis Hathaway, Venice
