Over Spring Break I read Erik Larson’s The Splendid and the Vile: A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz. Among the many great insights found in the book is a talk Churchill gave which included these words:
“We seek no treasure, we seek no territorial gains, we seek only the right of man to be free; we seek his right to worship his God, to lead his life in his own way, secure from persecution. As the humble laborer returns from his work when the day is done, and sees the smoke curling upwards from his cottage home in the serene evening sky, we wish him to know no knocking of the secret police upon his door will disturb his leisure or interrupt his rest.” Churchill concluded his talk by assuring “Britain sought only government by popular consent, freedom to say whatever one wished, and the equality of all people in the eyes of the law.”
Churchill’s words are imperative in times like these when freedoms are being eroded. Yale law school students who heckled and ruined a planned talk between an atheist and Christian who were seeking common ground is one such example. Working on the public university campus I am constantly trying to help students see the benefits of freedom and the detriments of tyranny. And in my mind, this tyranny arises out of fundamentalism.I remember growing up in fundamentalism. Degrees of separation always followed. One couldn’t associate with anyone who did X (2nd degree), those who associated with those who associated with those who did X were separated from (3rd degree), and so on. There are all kinds of fundamentalism; degrees of separation follow. At Yale we have an example of current cultural fundamentalism. [And I shudder to think about the future of our court rooms if law students cannot practice courtroom decorum in a university environment.] The specific event here had nothing to do with LGBTQ+ folks (which was the supposed rationalization for the riotous interruption). It had everything to do with freedom of speech.
An atheist and a Christian finding common ground in an open dialogue. I believe in the importance of free speech and open dialogue. My crying concern for this or any culture is freedom. Silencing voices – in whatever community context – is the death knell of free speech. Erik Larson’s “The Splendid and the Vile” comes to mind again. In 1940 the German propagandist Goebbels began a punishment campaign against Germans who listened to the BBC.He ordered heavy sentences for radio offenders and told his propaganda lieutenants that every German must be clear in his mind that listening in to these broadcasts represents an act of serious sabotage.
Goebbels did, and Yale law school students do, adhere to their own forms of fundamentalism. The dividing line of separation is freedom. My responsibility in the public sphere is to accept all people, no matter their belief. I personally refuse any sort of fundamentalism. And I will always stand for freedom of speech.
If speech is not free for everyone, speech will not be free for anyone.
I will continue to speak out for freedom and freedom of speech. If free speech is lost, America freedoms are lost.Picture credits: Luke Renoe
Goebbels – By Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-17049 / Georg Pahl / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5415572
Sir Winston Churchill – By digitized by: BiblioArchives / LibraryArchives – Flickr: Sir Winston Churchill, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41991931
Erik Larson book – https://eriklarsonbooks.com/book/the-splendid-and-the-vile/
How are we defining “fundamentalism” exactly?
Great Q! The word usage grew out of my response to an agnostic colleague when he was arguing against a conservative individual’s participation in a Veritas event at Yale because she had – at other times – pushed back on LGBTQ+ inclusivity claims. The general context came out of that linked article in my post. I was referencing those who hold to “inclusivity” when indeed they are the most excluding of other POVs. In this case, I assumed the definition of “exclusion” and “separation” to make my point. If you or anyone would ask me to define the word outside that context, I would say that fundamental theology is foundational(ism) to belief; I am fundamental in doctrine (or essential theological claims) but not fundamentalist in attitude. I have probably muddied the waters further there. 🙁 But the question of “definition” is crucial in any context! Thank you professor!