Suppressing the Vote by Dustin Pickering

The purpose of free expression is to provide a platform for viewpoint variety. Culture is an expression of the national character; its purpose is to bind and inform, not bind and reform. If people change (and they inevitably do) it is by free choice upon exposure to new expressions of thought. Suppressing the flow of information from a moral stance, as some factions will do, is a violation of natural law. Whether a person is a bigoted fascist or a far-left supporter of the gay agenda, suppressing their speech and right of peaceful assembly is only bound to empower them. By putting their voices on mute, it draws a crowd of sympathizers and the curious pivot to their voice.

The cure for bad ideas is better ideas, not suppression of voices.

The problem with the upcoming election is that the right-wing wants to make government its moral agent. By banning pornography and suppressing the diversity and inclusion principles of the left by force, they are guilty of the same hubris of which they accuse their opponents. While many conservatives express that free choice is private and they are not concerned with a person’s sexual mores, it seems their elected officials are deeply concerned.

When in a capitalist economy, individuals are free to decide what products to consume. Rational choices are taken into account. When left to our own devices, we naturally and inevitably make the best choice for ourselves. But, says the right-wing party, when sexual mores are in question we are depraved, filthy, and need government assistance to dry us out. Human nature requires policing, but the business circuits do not because everyone is entitled to work and no one is entitled to the product of my labor but me.

These principles contrast with one another. Why regulate human sexuality and its expression through culture and government, but not the corporate culture that pollutes our air and water? Why limit free expression, but not when it comes to public health? I already know many will offer Biblical verses and quotations from gallant experts on homosexuality and culture, such as Freud. However, I expect we have evolved and sinfulness is redeemed through Christ. Otherwise we must stone adulterers and sex slavery is acceptable during conquest.

The bare fact that free expression should not be infringed, is encouraged and perfectly valid, should not concern either the right-wing or left-wing fanatics who desire impositions on their opponents. Using government force to restrain sexual expression of individuals is a violation of common principles—that what a person does harmlessly in private, is entirely their own device. What matters it to you if I masturbate or have consensual same sex affairs? We are not a theocratic majority! By all means, privatize religion so that free decisions concerning it can be made!

As we see that conduct is not to be officiated against the free and willing, we also must abide by standards that conform to free sense—people must be educated to reason and execute those reasons in a non-invasive manner.

The purpose of education is not to impose belief but to render people efficient at deciding for themselves. The reason religion should not be imposed from above in our schools, any more than political agendas, is that it concerns our innermost nature—which is strictly a private affair. When Christ himself said pray in private to the Father who knows all, he must have known this. If the right wing is concerned about the private sphere as much as they claim, you’d think they would be willing to police their own cultures. Child sexual abuse happens within churches and schools where families should be safe. However, their focus is on shaping the political culture!

While it is true that religion shapes culture and law, we live in a society that is increasingly secularized due to globalization. In globalizing markets through free trade, we have encouraged dialogue across cultures. Through trade, we bridge cultures even amongst parties who disagree. This dialogue enriches all of us, and if consensus alters it is not due to force but through freely complex interactions. Government should be used to navigate factionalism, but in this day and age we use it to impose agendas.