I’m not sure how common these kinds of light fixtures are anymore- but I remember as a child my parents had string lights that when they would suddenly go dark, they’d have to sit there testing each one to figure out which bulb went out. Once they figured out which bulb was the culprit they were able to replace it and the whole set of lights would work again. These kinds of lights are set up in what is called a series circuit in which there is only one path for electrons to take. When that path is broken, electrons can no longer flow so the entire string of lights goes out instead of only the one. 

In a way, the system we live in is similar and we must give careful thought to what we give our government consent to do. The law is intended to be equal, in that it must apply to everyone fair and square. If someone steals from me, I would agree with the consequence of them getting arrested and required to return my property. However, this means that I must be willing to also suffer the same consequences if I steal from someone else. This seems like common sense, but it gets harder to understand when we apply this same logic to something more complex like free speech. 

When someone shares an idea that we believe is wrong or hateful, we feel uncomfortable listening to it. The debate right now is if the government should impose some sort of consequence for sharing things that get labeled as misinformation or hate speech. I know this can get messy, but I have been thinking about this a lot lately and have had to come to my own conclusions being both a Christian and an American so this “essay” is really more for myself to process through things, but I share it in case anyone is interested. Let’s explore this issue with a topic that is not so sensitive but is incredibly diverse- diet and nutrition. 

One would think that nutrition is fairly scientific and that we have objectively established guidelines for it, however this is not true at all. To begin, medical doctors are not really required to have in depth education on nutrition, so while information coming from a respected medical doctor may seem reliable simply because they are a doctor, most of them actually get their information from other sources. Nutrition is very difficult to study because you can’t control for every single factor that comes into play. Oranges for example have many chemical constituents but are mainly known for their vitamin C.

While it seems easy enough to set up a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of oranges in reducing the length of a cold, there are many variables that actually make this impossible. Each person’s unique metabolism, lifestyle and genetics will influence how their body reacts to oranges. Fruits and vegetables are also greatly affected by their growing environment- the quality of soil, the fertilizers and pesticides used, the quality of storage, how long it’s been sitting on a shelf etc. No two oranges are the same. To get around this, what ends up happening most of the time is researchers will instead choose to study one prominent constituent in the particular food that is thought to be of healthy consequences- in oranges it would be Vitamin C. A clinical trial on the effects of vitamin C on the duration of the common cold is much easier to control than a study on whole oranges. However this takes vitamin C away from it’s context of the whole orange, we don’t know how vitamin C interacts with all the other constituents inside the orange and if that is part of the reason that it makes it healthy, we also don’t know how pairing oranges with other foods may effect how our body receives it.

The issues outlined above are part of the reason why so many studies that are lumped in with nutrition are not really on nutrition but on nutrition fragments. For example: medical doctors who favor a plant based diet can legitimately point to a clinical trial on vitamin C to prove that eating more citrus fruit is beneficial and effective for cutting down the length of a cold. Many fruits and vegetables contain vitamin C and so this study on vitamin C is lumped in with evidence for a plant based diet. In the same way, this plant based doctor can point to the legitimate fact that animal products contain little to no vitamin C to downplay any benefits it may have for humans. On the contrary- this doctor can point to the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol that’s found in animal products as proof that it is bad for us while ignoring the more beneficial iron and protein. 

Paleo, vegan, carnivore, keto, whole 30, all these diets have legitimate facts and clinical trials they can point to in order to prove their point. They all probably also have rightly respected professionals who favor them. The fact that the west tries to study nutrition through a reductionistic framework is part of the reason why there is so much confusion and frustration about it (we would benefit from broader more holistic studies on nutrition as opposed to reductionistic model, but that’s a whole other topic, I highly recommend the book Whole by dr Colin Campbell that goes in depth to why the way nutrition is studied in the west is not beneficial). This is how we can end up with two completely opposing views who have legitimate studies they can point to. Who is right? There are studies that show saturated fat is bad, but there are also studies that show protein is good- meat contains both. Knowing these two facts would you label an article titled “Red meat can increase your chance of heart disease” as misinformation because it is basing this claim from the fact that red meat is high in saturated fat and saturated fat can lead to heart disease? What about an article that says “Red meat is a beneficial addition to your diet to get strong and healthy”. Obviously this is more complicated than a simple true or false claim, in this case, this is not necessarily misinformation but incomplete information. This is what happens with basically every other politically charged topic- many times we have a mix of information and depending on who is publishing, only certain aspects of the facts will be emphasized and others ignored. Some parts of their argument may be true but others false.

Now lets imagine that you favor a plant based diet and that the elected officials in the White House are mostly “plant based leaning” as well. They want to be able to prosecute those who are putting out misleading articles about the benefits of a carnivore diet and begin to do things to make the idea of a carnivore diet unfavorable and information about it harder to access. This will probably not bother you because you agree with them and think that people are being harmed and mislead by this information that is being pushed by carnivores. You may cheer and support these decisions but the problem is that those people in the White House now are not going to be there forever. What happens when the next administration is carnivore leaning? Because you have voted for and cheered at the prosecution and silencing of carnivores in the past cycle, you have now given precedent and consent for the next administration to do the same to you- a plant based leaning individual. Whatever we give consent to be done to others, we give consent to be done to us. Some Christians may not mind if accessibility to transgender ideology texts and webpages become harder to access and would likely vote for a law to be passed which would ban the publication of such books. The problem is, the next administration will have all the right to label your sacred text as misinformation and do the same exact thing. Before I ruffle any feathers- allowing the publishing of books on transgender ideology is not the same thing as forcing students to read them at school. Just like the series circuit string lights, one bulb goes out, we all go out. With all this in mind, it’s also important to note that I’m not discussing appropriate contexts for the sharing of ideas, obviously there are some ideas that are not suitable for kids or inappropriate to share at a birthday party.

It would be nice if misinformation was really only about correcting simple objective things like- people claiming that a car was blue when it’s actually red and there being clear evidence of that, but it isn’t. The things people are mostly upset about are not simple true or false claims, they are highly complex topics. The problem with setting any sort of legal consequence for hate speech or misinformation is who decides what is misinformation? Who decides what is hate speech? It’s really not that objective. Would you trust CNN or Fox News to determine what is misinformation or hate speech? It’s important to note that there are laws already set in place for things like slander, defamation and baring false witness, we aren’t talking about those things but about the sharing of ideas ABOUT things that some may want to label as misinformation or hate speech.  

I’m not saying that every idea is nice, respectful or good but the consequences some people wish that our government could impose on others for simply sharing those ideas is a dangerous path to take. The highest form of oppression is the suppression of speech, the most oppressive past and present regimes such as North Korea, Venezuela and Communist Russia could and would, at best, throw you in jail, and worst, execute you for simply saying the wrong thing. So does this mean we must protect and allow the speech against Christianity? Against America by American citizens? Does this mean we must allow white suprematists to share their beliefs? The answer is yes. If we want a free America then we must protect the first amendment right for EVERYONE. This may sound scary, but don’t forget we are talking about the freedom of SPEECH, not actions. A white suprematist can ramble all they want about how they believe being white is superior but they cannot go on a lynching spree. When we silence voices, we silence ideas and that is the beginning to a dictatorship where the government has the power to control what people can think by only allowing their own propaganda to be shared. In other words- literal brainwashing. 

The reason the idea of allowing ALL ideas to be shared is scary because the fear is “people will believe anything”. While this may seem like a legitimate fear- I challenge you to apply it to yourself- you, being a person, would you believe anything? We must be on our toes and educate ourselves and do what we can to guide our families in the way of the Lord. Critical thinking is one of the most important skills that we must learn and teach our children. The alternative is a government that doesn’t think we can (or doesn’t want us to) think for ourselves and believes we must be shown only some ideas but not all. 

The thing that really got me into thinking this way about free speech was listening to my husband Gabe take part in an extensive survey where they asked him many questions regarding our country. On a random day someone came to our door asking to survey Gabe, we don’t remember what organization it was or what their purpose was but they were offering $50 for participation. Since we weren’t really doing anything, Gabe decided to participate. One of the questions was regarding on whether or not a person should be publicly allowed to speak against America. Gabe’s answer-yes. I was shocked! There was no room for discussion, just yes or no answers so I waited until the survey was over to ask him about it. I asked why he thought that people should be able to speak out against America in America and his answer lead to the discussion about the first amendment, free speech and how if we allow the censorship of any idea, we ultimately enable the government to censor anyone they want, including ourselves. I had never thought of it this way- once again, we speak of the sharing of ideas, not actions or threats to action. North Korean defector Yeonmi Park’s story and unique experience in both a dictatorship and a free country have also had a lot to do with my thoughts on this topic. North Korea’s citizens are so afraid of saying the wrong thing and angering the government that they teach kids from a young age to be careful what they say. Yeonmi shared that the first lesson that her mom taught her was to watch her mouth and that even when she thinks she’s alone, even the birds and mice can hear her whisper. The oppression is so great that many North Koreans actually believe that their dictator can read their mind! That is the ultimate control and censorship of a population. I highly recommend her two books “In Order to Live” and “While Time Remains”.

As Christians, supporting the first amendment is fundamental to keeping our freedom to share the gospel with others no matter how much people may not like it. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the word of God. It may be the only way some people will come to know the Lord. The reality that God put us in is one where we can freely choose Him. God himself allows us to rebel against him, we could not rebel against Him unless he allows us the ability to do it. As many have said before- God could have made us all robots without any will or choice but to serve and worship Him. 

This is why we must be so careful with what we want and ask the government to do- we are not a Theocracy and as much as it seems it would be nice to have a Christian nation, that is a recipe for oppression. Not because the gospel is oppressive, not because Jesus is oppressive (we know it’s quite the opposite) but because people are fallen, corrupt, greedy and can become oppressors. This is not heaven, Jesus is not in the White House. A theocracy only works when every single person agrees and proclaims in their heart that Jesus is King and that is the description of heaven. Demanding everyone to follow Biblical ideas is not loving, it is not Jesus’ way. Jesus says come to me (Matt 11:28), He does not drag you to Him. Love is free, not demanded or coerced. Right from the beginning in Genesis, God still gives Adam and Eve a choice as to obey Him, He did not hide the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He warned against it, but still wanted Adam and Eve to freely choose Him. Five of the 6 current Theocratic countries in the world are Muslim. I’ll let everyone make of that what they will but I guarantee that not everyone living in those countries is happy with this and I bet not all Muslims interpret the Koran the way their governments do. 

Earlier this year Louisiana passed a law that will require all schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms starting in 2025. I don’t know how the majority of Christians feel about this as I haven’t discussed it much with anyone but I sure am not seeing an outcry about it. It’s interesting that Christians aren’t complaining about it, but if a law was passed to require the 5 pillars of Islam to be displayed in each classroom- Christians on social media would be blowing up about it. Again, we are not a theocracy and I will dare say that it’s best to not require by law that either the Ten Commandments or the 5 pillars to be displayed in public schools. It’s the family’s job to teach their kids about Jesus, not the school’s. 

Ideally we want the system that will give us the most freedom to share our faith, but that comes at the cost of allowing others to share their ideas as well. We can’t have special privileges just because we are believers. I can’t deny that my take on this whole issue is also influenced by my own “Americanness” which values freedom. It is not necessarily wrong to have a bias- everyone has a bias. Being born and raised here I’m aware of this but I’m not too sure every American understands it. I see many Americans openly speak out against America and its corruptness, but I’m not sure they understand that the ability to do that is thanks to America! Freely speaking against America is the ultimate expression of being American. Speaking against your own country is only allowed in places who value free speech, in many other countries, simply expressing concern for certain decisions the government is making carries steep consequences. Remember, we are taking about speech, not action. I can list my grievances without retaliation, but I can’t threaten to blow up a building in DC and expect to get away with it. All this is to say that as a Christian and American, it is my conviction that we must protect our first amendment rights. 

** I do not own the rights to any of the photos used