To the Editor:
There are some very fundamental freedoms, which we enjoy in America. Government does not give us our freedoms, but one of its purposes under our Constitution is to protect them. One fundamental freedom we have is to worship our God in our own way, or not. Government cannot tell us we cannot and cannot tell us how, or where. Let us be vigilant about this, and not let it be lost, even one pebble at a time.
But we are only free by God to do the ethical and proper things, not anything we may want, and we were given a conscience to tell us those boundaries, were we not? We elect our representatives, who in turn make laws that further define the boundaries of what we can and cannot ethically do. And we are duty bound to obey these laws. For those who choose not to, we choose police to enforce these laws for all the people. Their premise is that our freedoms permit us to settle our own affairs, as long as they do not adversely affect others.
Another fundamental freedom is our unfettered freedom of speech. We are free to say what we believe, and even to say what we believe will sway others on an issue. But eventually the whole truth comes out, does it not? We do not have to be politically correct, either, in exercising this freedom. Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me?” A good debate is the healthy way to discern the proper path among complex options. So what if someone takes offence from a single misspoken word, or a poorly turned phrase.
Not one of us speaks in perfect prose, or has the right answers the first time. Listening to a person’s voice helps us see what is in a person’s heart, and that is what is really important, anyway. Those professional pundits who take huge offence at what someone says every opportunity merely restrict our, and their, freedom of expression. Debate yes, but no name calling, or labeling. We know that when someone starts calling names, or raising their voice, that they are afraid to have a rational discussion and abide by the weight of arguments. And journalists who cannot just report a story, but masquerade their opinions as fact, or choose not to report all the news, are doing their historical profession, and the American People, a disservice. Is that what Schools of Journalism are supposed to be teaching? We depend greatly on Freedom of the Press to uncover correctable ills of society.
The freedom to make our individual choices is very fundamental, whether it is in medical care, in education, in our pursuit of happiness through our career selection, in choosing our life’s partner, or which candidate we vote for, or in what we eat, or what we purchase, or numerous other choices in life. Our small businesses should not need government approval to exist or to make business choices to be successful. It makes no sense to have government at all levels, placing ever more restrictions on our choices.
Our government also, through federal funding, has profound effects on the economics of every aspect of society in the several states, including endless details of education, highways and bridges, and how we are allowed to build our homes and health care. There are some who want the Federal government to take over more and more, and have the states, local governments and people able to choose less and less. This is based on an assumption that the people, and the states, are unable to make these choices properly themselves, and leads to a bigger government, and more taxes, and less ownership. Would we not be much better off if more decisions were made at the household level, or at least the local government level, closer to the people?
Glen L. Sjoblom
Great Falls Freedom Memorial Committee