Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Dialog

  • My Personal Stand on Freedom of Speech

    My Personal Stand on Freedom of Speech

    Please note the word “personal” in the title. Often when I discuss freedom of speech, people respond with comments on what the law says about freedom of speech. The responses sometimes differ based on the country. These are my beliefs about how I should support freedom of speech personally. They represent my own contributions, not something mandated by law.

    Background

    Early in life, even before my teens, I was quite combative and always ready to argue about what I believed. One of my formative experiences as a teenager was arguing international politics with people in Guyana. Generally, foreigners shouldn’t comment on politics in a country where they are guests. However, as a teenager, I got by with it. More importantly, I learned something important about perspective that has stuck with me.

    People with different backgrounds, in different countries will have a different perspective. This perspective is not inferior to my own. Rather it is just different. Guyana had recently gained its independence after a long colonial period. The country also had to deal with a world largely richer and more powerful militarily. Guyana provided a different perspective.

    I don’t believe that truth is ultimately relative. But as finite people with limited perspective we can only reach for that objective reality. It’s very valuable for us to take the time to actually comprehend someone else’s perspective. Comprehending doesn’t require agreement. What it requires is that one can take in some of that perspective. I had the pleasure of learning from my Guyanese elders about a different perspective on imperialism, the middle east, China/Taiwan, and other such issues.

    The Requirement for Free Speech

    My experience brought new perspective, but I continued to regard debate as central. How did one test ideas? Debate. Go at it hammer and tongs and you’ll be able to test the boundaries and the inner structure of your knowledge and ideas.

    Free speech is an absolute necessity to carry out such an enterprise. If certain ideas are considered out of bounds, it’s impossible to get a complete and fair combined expression.

    Note that this process, as I saw it, was not one of equally informing one another. I had a number of people with whom I had such dialog. But I was perfectly willing to debate vigorously with someone I knew would dismiss every idea. I expressed those ideas because I had the challenge of expressing them. It also gave me the opportunity to see how they landed in someone else’s world.

    I will note that I was also very political. I registered to vote as soon as I was able to do so and immediately signed up as a precinct captain. I was a captain with nobody but myself to command, but I got involved and active. I spent my time on election day debating with others at the polls.

    In my experience, however, I can’t recall actually changing anyone’s mind through debate. This doesn’t lead me to the conclusion that debate is worthless. Rather, it wasn’t accomplishing what I hoped it would accomplish. There was also the question of time. If you have an opinion on pretty much everything (which I did), and you are anxious to debate, it will take time. As the online opportunities grew, so did the consumption of my time.

    I was online before it was a major thing. I ran a computer Bulletin Board System (BBS) in the late 80s that was rather popular for its time. I got in political debates there. I was on Compuserve when we accessed it by phone, and I got into plenty of debates there.

    Some Restrictions

    I learned quite quickly that while free speech was good, there was more to it than just allowing expression. There were times and places. Online that meant various discussion boards. For these boards we had rules. Often these rules were simply subject matter. What is the purpose of this discussion group? If you want to talk about something else, go somewhere else. A good rule of freedom of expression is that if it’s your space, you rule the expression.

    Then there’s time. For someone with as many opinions as I had (and have), I needed a way to restrict the time spent. I began to tell some people who challenged me that I would have to give them the last word as I didn’t have time to pursue the issue. Many people find it difficult to let a discussion or debate go online. It can often become a time-consuming black hole. You need to learn to thicken your skin. Just ignore it when the other party declares victory and does a cyber-dance on your virtual grave.

    Energion Publications

    This brings me to my founding of Energion Publications. I founded this company to have a common publisher for a broad range of ideas within the Christian community. My previous experiences had led me to believe that while it had its purposes, debate was not going to accomplish what I wanted to accomplish. The idea was listening and testing one’s ideas in relation to other ideas. I don’t recall that “echo chamber” was that common of an expression at the time, but avoiding an echo chamber was my intent.

    Over the years I have greatly reduced my debating time, and also limited my commentary to a much smaller range of issues. I do this because I want to do as well as I can with what I can share. By publishing the works of others, I can help ensure that a variety of viewpoints are represented.

    Still Free Speech

    My key point, and main reason for writing this is that I continue to believe the same things about free speech as I did back in college and before, including the additional lessons about spaces. Not every space has to have all speech, but there is value in keeping the walls as far away as possible.

    A number of people wonder how I can publish material I disagree with. Since I include a variety of viewpoints, it’s clear that some of the material will represent viewpoints other than my own. I wouldn’t be carrying out the mission I established for my company or my own goals in life if I did not.

    I do not find this difficult at all. I enjoy hearing various ideas. I enjoy helping people present them as well as possible. I enjoy being part of the process of presenting those ideas so that others can test their own ideas against them and learn. If I look like I’m enjoying a discussion in which an author is saying something you know I don’t believe, that is precisely what I’m doing. And while I may ask clarifying questions, I won’t start debating that person. That’s not what I’m here for.

    From a strictly secular point of view I call this respecting other people and their own abilities. When I decide to protect others from hearing “bad” points of view, I don’t respect them for their ability to reject those points of view. From a spiritual standpoint, I believe in the ability of the Spirit of Truth to do better at influencing people than I could.

    To those who will point out all the evidence of people failing in either of those, I would first point out that your judgment is fallible as is mine, but also the substantial failure of control mechanisms to actually control the human heart and soul.

    Respect

    Ultimately, I think this is about respect. I respect another’s individuality and right to an opinion, even one that might annoy me. Especially one that might annoy me. I respect the spaces that others set up.

    I make my own discussion spaces as open as I possibly can and still carry on the discussion.

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI. I incorporated several AI suggestions in the text, but rejected a number of others.)

  • The Demand for Opinions

    The Demand for Opinions

    There has always been a tendency for crowds to call for others to support them. If you do not, you are contributing to the other side, however they define that.

    Social media has multiplied that demand and given the demanders a megaphone. If you do not express an opinion–the right opinion according to them–on this or that issue, you are letting other people by with something.

    This attitude spans the political spectrum. There will be those who will think I’m talking about them, and those who think I’m talking about their enemies. Both are correct. I’m talking about the way we talk about just about everything.

    Don’t imagine I’m talking about politics alone or even primarily. I first encountered this sort of attitude over religious viewpoints. If you weren’t arguing for a particular viewpoint, then you were obviously arguing for the opposite, variously defined.

    In particular, I saw this in denominational authority. I was a student at the Seventh-day Adventist seminary at Andrews University. If you were not defending the authority of the SDA General Conference, you were obviously a rebel. You couldn’t just go on about your business. Note, however, that while my experience was with the SDA church, this is by no means exclusively an issue in the SDA church.

    Social media simply magnifies the call. I see posts every day that demand that someone speak out about this or that. And there is a point to speaking out. Speaking out can be a good thing. In addition, we have those who claim that if we don’t post something about their favorite cause we are heartless. We don’t care.

    I believe we have a different problem. We are trying to generate good results starting from a mob mentality. We have an effort to create a mob of people without serious knowledge of an issue who will say yes, click ‘Like’ or Share. When this is done, we can feel that we are truly fighting evil. I’d say “as defined by,” but really, we have undefined opposition to undefined evil in the pursuit of undefined good.

    Now there are a number of voices out there who are well-informed. I do not condemn pastors for preaching their understanding of Jesus and applying that to the moral actions of their congregations. I don’t condemn an informed politician (may their tribe multiply) in advocating a position.

    What I do is choose myself not to play this game. I choose a small number of issues, largely in the realm of spirituality and community, and I advocate for those. I understand them fairly well. I can speak of them to some effect, though I am not extremely optimistic. I was chastened by overhearing someone in the hall of the church admin building telling someone else what a beautiful answer “Henry” had to their question. I did not recognize, nor would I have endorsed the answer attributed to me. They didn’t know I overheard.

    What I suggest is choosing what you will spend your time on and ignoring the calls for proclamations on other things. Be prepared to defend what you say and make your presentation most effective.

    I could say that the times call for genuine dialogue and grace to our enemies, but that has always been true. Firm opinions, carefully researched, and presented with conviction will go a long way. There is a place here for negatives, for calling evil “evil” no matter who is carrying it out.

    But the need for clearly presented information is much greater than the need for opinions.

    That’s my opinion!

  • Why Am I Not Involved in Politics?

    Why Am I Not Involved in Politics?

    Because, in my chosen way, I am involved.

    I thought I’d answer this question in a post so I’d have something to reference when people ask. Most of those who have asked me this have not done so in an online environment.

    The reason I want to answer it is that some people have gotten the wrong impression. Thus, first, what is not my reason?

    Not My Reason

    It is not that I believe Christians should not be involved in politics. While I believe that the church, as CHURCH, should not be tied to politics, I believe that individual Christians can and should be involved. The extent of their involvement is individual, but I would include voting, advocating for candidates, endorsing candidates, being a candidate, and of course advocating on issues.

    I was registered to vote in the first election after I turned 18. In that election, I was also the precinct captain for a candidate (it was a primary), and also a poll watcher. I advocated for my candidate on my college campus. I have been involved in other campaigns since, though only at the precinct level. I do not regret this activity in any way.

    I fervently hope that all who are eligible, Christian or not, will study the issues and candidates and go to the polls. Right now, beside this computer, I have my sample ballot. There are a number of races on which I have already decided my position. There are a few marked for some further study.

    My particular reason for writing this post is to make this statement. If you fail to see political posts by me on social media, it is not because I consider politics unimportant, too dirty to get involved in, or uninteresting.

    My Uninvolvement [sic]

    So why would I appear so uninvolved at this point that people ask me why? Obviously, nobody asked that while I was stuffing envelopes, making phone calls, and standing outside the polling station in various elections.

    The reason is simple: I believe that each of us have to set priorities. When I was working politically I had the time to be well-educated on the topics and the reasons I advocated for my candidate or issue.

    In particular, I do not believe the volume of political posts one puts out is a good measure of their involvement or their effectiveness.

    What I Do

    At this point I find I have time to advocate effectively (I hope!) on only a few things. I choose to advocate on issues of my faith. I vigorously advocate for dialog. I advocate against demonizing your opponents. I firmly believe in the worth of every person, definitely including those I am tempted to hate.

    What I do not do is publicly advocate on specific proposals or issues, on parties, or on specific candidates.

    I could wish more people would make some choices along these lines. The vast majority of political posts and memes are not actually worthy of viewing or reading. For some reason we often feel we have to have opinions–strong opinions–on a broad range of political issues, often without enough effort to be informed. Those who repeatedly say, “Do your own research,” are often the worst offenders.

    Conclusion

    My level of involvement is decided by these ideas, and yes, as a Christian, I decide this prayerfully. But please, be involved as you can effectively be. Then show up at the polls and vote. It’s a privilege, but I also see it as a duty as a citizen of a republic.

  • The Importance of Being Questioned

    The Importance of Being Questioned

    When I’m having a discussion of something about which I have some expertise, say biblical languages, it’s quite easy to get impressed with myself. After all, unlike the “average person” (actually, I don’t believe in average people, hence, the quotes, but that’s another subject*), If I am in doubt of a translation in scripture, or simply hear another person talk about a Greek or Hebrew word, I can actually go check. I may even know of various places that word is used.

    *(I hate excessively long parenthetical remarks, don’t you?)

    Fortunately for my swollen head, there is a remedy to this. I can go to a seminary campus, or join a group dedicated to biblical languages, where one often finds people who earn their living teaching or researching, and I’ll be put in my place fairly quickly. How? Because in that atmosphere people question my conclusions. I may not change them, but I have to think about them and about alternatives.

    As salutary as reducing the size of my head might be, that is not the most important benefit. (Your mileage may vary.) The most important benefit is that it helps me not to get stuck on pet conclusions. I hear about potential difficulties with my conclusions from people who think differently, who know facts I may have missed, or who may just have ordered and prioritized data differently.

    My think is challenged.

    By responding positively to such a challenge, I may be able to improve my thinking, and (gasp) change my mind!

    But here are some things to avoid:

    1. Getting offended. There is such a thing as offensive speech, but much of what is called offensive is simply something presented from a different perspective, which I’d rather not hear. Offense blocks learning.
    2. Doubling down. When presented with a contrary opinion, I need to examine the evidence and the logic and see if I need to change my mind. If not, no problem. Doubling down is a technique to emphasize my superior rightness over someone else.
    3. Dismissing. It doesn’t hurt to think about what someone else has said. It doesn’t hurt to tell the other person you’ll think about it. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have time for every argument. What I can do is listen and then keep the ideas in mind over time.
    4. Equalizing. There are many things on which opinions are just fine, and it’s OK to say, “To each his or her own.” But on many topics, the different viewpoints are in no way equal.
    5. Despising. It’s easy to dismiss the other person because you already despised them. It’s also easy to despise them because of their opinion. Despising let’s you out of considering the opinions of such a worthless person. You are the only one to lose.
    6. Labeling. It’s easy to call someone a name, or group them with people you already reject. In politics we can call the other guy “just a Democrat” or “just a Republican” or whatever party labels apply in your country. We can also call someone a socialist or a capitalist (whichever is negative in our mind) in order to dismiss a particular idea. It’s not that labels are bad. Rather, all of language involves labeling in some way. The thing is that labeling needs to be accurate, and not dismissive.

    I think the goal should be to be able to have strong opinions without despising the people who disagree. That’s not easy. The tendency is to either have strong opinions on something and dismiss your opponents, or to try to equalize all opinions. Either one can deprive you of valuable, constructive, necessary dialog.