If you happened to walk by campus Tuesday, you may have noticed the exuberant and bigoted display by Christian folks who, for presumably some “divinely inspired” reason, were compelled to gather on our university campus solely to spew hate and disseminate fear. A question I received after this theater display was one regarding the role of free speech in and is what led me to write this article and explain my reasoning of why I firmly believe that free speech is necessary in any healthy and functioning society. 

Not only is free speech necessary for common agreement, but it is also, in fact, more necessary for those voicing a dissenting opinion to be heard and more importantly listened to and internalized by the masses. 

Thankfully, Iowa State has “free speech zones” (albeit an insipid and vague concept in itself) for people to express their views and opinions. The question I was asked when discussing this event was “how does the campus allow people to preach hate?” 

It is a valid question with a natural impulse behind it. Upon first consideration, it seems to be commonsensical to assume that hate speech isn’t, or rather, shouldn’t be allowed. Even though many people who make this argument are scorned as being totalitarian, they raise an interesting point about what constitutes freedom of speech and what the limits of such speech are in practice. 

Should people be “allowed” to shout at university students and tell them they are going to hell? Should the university allow people to openly express hate against the people of Iowa State University on their campus? One when posed with this question can, indeed should, refer to Mr. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who famously in Schenck v. United States compared the distribution of leaflets discouraging wartime participation of the citizenry to the shouting of “Fire!” in a crowded theater. In other words, the First Amendment doesn’t cover speech that can be perceived as an incitement to panic and confusion.

I would make the case that these Christian fundamentalists and their expression of their bigoted views were far worse than shouting “Fire!”. 

If anyone doubts the potency with which these Christian fundamentalists advertised themselves, allow me to quote from their placards. One man wore a sign that said the following: 

“The LORD GOD HATES Atheism, Lying, Wiccans, Humanism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Abortion, Islam, Pride,” and, of course, “All Workers of Iniquity” with a direct reference to Psalm 5:5 which says (along with the verses next to it) the following:

“For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy that speak leasing: the Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.”

These “workers of iniquity” according to different placards are fake Christians, abortionists, Jesus mockers, fornicators, rebellious women, Muslims, disobedient children, sports nuts, the prideful (except them right?), hypocrites, crossdressers, buddhists, good people (interesting one?), thieves, inventors of evil, homosexuals, party animals, idolaters, adulterers, liars, anarchists, Catholics, murderers, atheists, porn freaks, liberals, satanists, cowards, false teachers, Hindus and money lovers, among other things. 

There is no question there are actions like thievery and murder (among other things listed) which I and others would agree is wrong. However, I know Muslims and homosexuals and sports nuts and Hindus and Catholics and atheists who are extraordinary people, and who possess a clarified sense of morality down to the very fiber of their being. To menace them with the grim message that “HELL AWAITS” them with images of people crying and burning and being tormented is not only wrong but morally repugnant. 

Yet, apparently to these cowardly men, their interpretations of the Bible are the immutable truth. What should happen when these people arrive on campus, spewing hatred and telling everyone this is destiny and that when Armageddon dawns on us, we all shall be judged according to our sin? Should we shun them as being morally reprehensible as they are and boot them off campus? Or should we stop and listen?

I subscribe to the latter idea for a few reasons. In addition to what I mentioned above, that is, the right for everyone to hear controversial opinions as well as express them, we should all take the opportunity to listen in order to challenge our own views about the world. 

While obviously absurd, I at least appreciate the honesty these men expressed about the moral inconsistency and incoherence of their faith. Their display allows us to meet in a forum such as the one you are reading in right now and discuss why these views are worth throwing to the wayside. If free speech didn’t exist and instead was regulated and suppressed, we could not fight back against such bigotry. For it is obvious that once your right of speech is revoked from you, there is nothing left to grasp onto. And it can be proven over and over again that once one justifies the infringement of another’s speech, so does this justification gain its validity to be used against anyone who may disagree with the orthodoxy of the time.  

Christopher Hitchens put it nicely when he said “the only thing that should be upheld at all costs and without qualification is the right of free expression, because if that goes, then so do all other claims of right as well.”

He also made a salient point in claiming that there is a great difficulty in deciding who gets the right to judge what qualifies as permissible speech and what doesn’t: 

“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? Or to determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the task of being the censor? Isn’t it a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography, in order to decide what’s fit to be passed and what isn’t, is the man most likely to become debauched?” 

In short, I wanted to use the example of the fanatical and deluded Christian proselytizers to make an argument of why free speech is essential. At almost every level (besides the obvious ones) I disagree with their positions and, in reality, detested their views and thought their presence was a stain on our university community. I do also believe, however, that they have just as much of a right as anyone else to speak and preach on our campus.

Free speech, we must remember, not only guarantees the right for one to speak their mind and the right for others to listen, but it also guarantees the right to criticize and excoriate immoral behavior and viewpoints that are harmful to our society and culture. 

It is also worth noting that I do not intend this article to simply be a tirade against Christians or religious folk in general. I am an atheist, yet greatly respect people’s faith and differing viewpoints. I only criticize these hardline Christians simply because they make a mockery of the Christians that I know who to be moral and open to dialogue and dissent; and because they explicitly state with sinister grins pinned to their faces that members of our campus community – people who like sports, people who identify as LGBTQ+, people who are Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist – are all condemned to eternal torment and everlasting hellfire simply for being from a different religion and cultural heritage. Mind you, these views are publicized and held-up as representations of a belief system often credited for its ethics and submission to divine authority. 

At least I have the ability to criticize it and at least all of you do too. 

For the sake of irony, thank god for free speech.