It's not freedom of speech to say, "Agree with me, or else!"

Opinions are like assholes,
and brown noses don’t make them valid.

— Stephen H. Provost

In our polarized nation, we’ve come to confuse two very different things: The right to express an opinion with the feeling we’re entitled to impose it on others.

The former is a hallmark of democracy. The latter a feature of dictatorships.

The holiday season provides us with a perfect example. Do we say “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Holidays” or something else? Do we define what we say based on our own tradition, or that of the person we’re greeting? Does it really matter?

I personally believe it’s the thought that counts. If someone is wishing me a good day, that’s an expression of kindness. It doesn’t matter to me if the person calls the day Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, or “the holidays.”

But there are those who feel threatened by good wishes unless they’re expressed in a certain way. They insist that, if you don’t use specific words, you’re engaging in some kind of “war on Christmas” — that “Happy Holidays” isn’t a friendly greeting, but an explicit threat. In their perfect world, everyone would say “Merry Christmas.”

It’s not just that they want the right to their own opinion; they want everyone else to share it. That’s a huge distinction.

Cancel culture

But it’s not just conservatives who want to impose their opinions on other. Liberals do the same thing, much to the consternation those across the aisle: They condemn those who don’t agree with them about “politically correct” matters.

Say a word out of line, even innocently or because of social conditioning, and you risk being judged, shunned, or “canceled.” Words that might be poorly chosen through ignorance, but they can become a scarlet letter, and many will assume you’ve spoken out of subconscious or previously restrained malice. That may not be the case.

But the injured parties aren’t willing to take any chances, because they don’t know your motives and don’t want to take a risk that it might have been malicious. So they demand that you be punished or fired, without caring about (or trying to understand) your motivations.

Donald Trump has railed against this approach even as he’s employed it himself, firing or forcing out employees if they step out of line — according to his definition — just once.

Interestingly, however, Trump’s tendency to see people as disposable doesn’t go both ways. While they rail against “cancel culture” being employed over the smallest grievances, his followers have ignored Trump’s use of it himself and have gone to the opposite extreme by excusing his most grievous offenses. Even when they violate their own stated values.

Values such as religious freedom... as long as it’s their religion.

Religion as a cudgel

It’s fine to argue for religious freedom, but it’s another thing altogether if you believe that such freedom entails imposing your views on others who don’t share them. It’s one thing to argue for your right to pray, and quite another to lead a prayer in a public school. It’s one thing to say you’re not going marry someone of the same sex, but another to say you won’t bake a same-sex couple a wedding cake that you’d bake for anyone else.

It’s one thing to say you have a right to rent an apartment, and another to say you have the right to discriminate against Black people because they’re somehow cursed and said to be the biblical descendants of Ham.

As I’ve discussed in my book, Jesus, You’re Fired!, the distinction between freedom of belief and compelling others to share (at least outwardly) your beliefs has created tensions within Christianity almost since the beginning. On the one hand, Christian doctrine is based on love freely given and accepted, and on principles. Yet on the other, it’s an evangelical faith whose mission is, at least in part, to seek converts — some have argued by compulsion if necessary.

Using religion as a cudgel isn’t very loving.

Talking past each other

But religion is far from the only issue. The internet in general, and social media in particular, has fed into the notion that it’s somehow important to persuade others, “I’m right! And you’re not!” Online platforms have become places where people try to impose their opinions on those with differing views. And when they’re called out for trolling or misleading others, they cry “Free speech!” in defense of their right to hold a certain opinion.

First of all, the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech applies only to government attempts to limit speech. And second — I’ll say it again — expressing an opinion and imposing it on someone else through bullying, false statements, and intimidation are two entirely different things.

Plus, it doesn’t work. Trying to force someone who disagrees with you to change course only tends to make them dig in their heels.

So, why do people continue to do it?

They want to have someone to make fun of; to feel superior to. And they hope that someday they’ll have enough power to impose their will on those they disdain regardless of whether they agree.

We’ve gone past civil discourse into the arena of belligerence, where we’ve stopped talking to each other and are talking past each other instead. The next step will take us into to the realm of coercion: a one-way form of communication in which orders are given and must be followed without question. A realm where loyalty — or fealty — trumps independent thought and even common sense.

Having an opinion is fine. You’re entitled to it. What you’re not entitled to do is try to shove it down my throat. Inducing me to vomit is definitely not in your best interest.