Local opinion: Freedom, viewed as distance

Re: the Dec. 8 article “Protect the bedrock concept of freedom.”

On Dec. 8 Jim Douthit published a guest opinion in the Star in which he set forth his opinion about freedom. Mr. Douthit might distance himself from any label, but his opinion, for some, could come across as excessively “libertarian” — in a complicated country of 330 million.

Who among us doesn’t believe in freedom, but for some of us (and in practical terms) freedom exists in a social context — among family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, countrymen, and fellow human beings. “The state”, representing all Americans collectively, might be perceived by some as “the enemy” of freedom, but for others the state provides for a necessary measure of health, safety, and security in our complex human interactions. Some are predators who, by their conduct, would interfere with the freedom of others. Freedom seen as “distance” from such conduct (freedom from fear, oppression, intimidation, and harm) is also freedom. Only the state can create necessary “distance” between predatory conduct (sometimes masquerading as freedom from government restraint) and the safety, peace, and freedom of others.

The perceived differences between MAGA Republicans and Democrats in the era of the Trump phenomenon may be thought of as a chasm — a chasm perhaps too wide and deep to imagine what kind of social engineering might be devised for the construction of a bridge between the two sides. “Freedom” thought of as “distance” is one way to contemplate the current divide between “you” and “me” — MAGA Republican and Democrat. Consider the First and Second Amendments.

Measured in terms of distance, religious freedom for the Founding Fathers was the distance between church and state. No “Establishment of Religion” they said. Religious freedom for you is to shorten that distance between evangelical Christianity and the state. For you “Establishment of Religion” is a goal. Religious freedom for me is to make the distance a chasm.

“Free Exercise of Religion” meant that the state should keep its distance from your free exercise of religion. For you it means the state should keep its distance from your interference in my free exercise of religion. For me it means the state should expand the distance between your free exercise and mine.

Personal freedom for you is to lengthen the distance between the state and your guns. Personal freedom for me is to shorten the distance between the state and your guns.

Freedom of speech for you is lengthen the distance between your hate speech and the state. Freedom of speech for me is to persuade the state to lengthen the distance between your hate speech and my freedom to live — to live in peace.

Your freedom of the press is to lengthen the distance between the state’s “prior restraint” of your hate words and the harm they cause. My freedom of the press is to persuade the state to lengthen the distance between the hate you publish and the harm you cause.

Freedom of assembly for you is to assemble an insurrectionist mob with the state keeping its distance from obvious probable cause arrests for damage to persons and property. Freedom of assembly for me, and like-minded people, is to peacefully protest your assembly of an insurrectionist mob and your safe distance from the police powers of the state.

Freedom of petition for you is to arm yourself with an AR-15-style assault weapon and shorten the distance between you and a governor’s mansion or a Legislature. Freedom of petition for me is to put my name on a petition to ask government to shorten the distance between me and your assault weapons.

Clearly, the state should recognize the Bill of Rights’ protections of freedom as limitations on the power of the state to interfere with individual freedom, but the state should not be considered an “enemy of freedom” when it upholds everyone’s freedom to live by upholding its public safety obligations.