By Charles C. W. Cooke
Thursday, November 07, 2019
David writes
about the way in which conscience rights are covered in the press —
specifically, about the way in which they are forced into ignominious quotation
marks or attached to disparaging qualifiers such as “so-called.” As he
observes, the reflexive view within the media is that anyone talking about
their “conscience” must be a “bigot” or a “misogynist” who is engaged in an
“elaborate scheme.”
I would like to know when this trend started, and where
our betters expect that it will end. Although our present fights over
conscience often involve religious belief, it is by no means the case that
“conscience” is synonymous with “religious belief.” On the contrary: The idea
of conscience rights is indispensable to a free society whether that society is
religious or not. Prohibitions against forced speech represent protections of
conscience. Anti-censorship rules represent protections of conscience. So, inter
alia, do rules that protect anti-war protestors and Pride Month marchers,
statutes that create avenues for whistleblowers, and our cultural preference
for a volunteer army. As National Review’s resident heathen, I am — and
I should be — every bit as invested in the maintenance of conscience
rights as the most devoutly Catholic of my colleagues. Why? Two reasons. First,
because I am a classical liberal and pluralist, and because one can have
neither classical liberalism nor pluralism without conscience rights. Second,
because I do not know at what point I myself will need to assert my own
conscience against a majority that is trying to compel me to violate it. I have
read enough history to know that the individual is never safe forever.
It will horrify most of its members to hear this, but it
seems pretty clear to me that, far from being a repository of tolerance and
enlightened thought, our media is made up mostly of people who deeply dislike
the eccentrics and rebels and dissenters in our society, and who wish to wound
them and to push them to the margins whenever they are able. This approach is
extraordinarily myopic, of course, but it is real nevertheless — and to the
extent that when, in a century or so, we come to look back and wonder why our
culture simply gave up on trying to accommodate its heretics, we will have an
easy answer at our fingertips: Because the people who were charged with
reporting on a vast, boisterous, diverse, and free country decided that the
prerequisites to liberty were not the trellis upon which the national garden
might grow, but a sinister plot to be uncovered and crushed.
No comments:
Post a Comment