Who Cares What You Think

Not long ago I posted a response to an article in the Seattle Times that was answered by someone declaring “Who cares what you think?” It may have been said out of contempt or defensive anger, but it wasn’t a bad question. I write on politics, religion and economic matters, and why should anyone care what I think? What makes mine or any voice worth being heard in the public arena about public affairs? There are well paid opinion columnists, authoritative pundits, and authors of respected books who collectively influence the thinking of the nation on these things. I’m not one of them. Nor am I an “influencer,” whatever that is. I’m merely a writer who writes because I feel compelled to write as a way of engaging in reflective thinking about matters I believe are important to us as a people living in community.

Maybe no one cares what I think, but offering a voice in the public debate where every voice has a right to speak, even if not heard, is a mainstay of democracy. Someone posted a meme the other day about freedom not being free but comes with a high cost. It featured the military and well armed civilians as the guarantors of freedom. They aren’t. They never have been. The guarantors are those who speak in the public arena to define and defend what freedom means and requires. Words are what give meaning to freedom, rights and privileges. Words describe to whom they are given, under what conditions, and with what limitations. Words defend them, challenge them, explain them, corrupt them, incite wars for and against them, and negotiate peace to preserve them. Words are the tools by which persons gain, lose, use and abuse power. The military, self appointed militias, and armed insurrectionists are servants in their employ, or enemies. They’re useful servants at times, feared enemies at others, but never more than servants or enemies whose lives are expendable.

The power of words is not lost in Hebrew and Christian scripture where it is not armies but words that bring blessings and curses. James, in his letter, sums it up by warning that not many should become teachers because they will be judged with greater strictness. He goes on to capture in a few short words what God has warned about through the voices of prophets and psalmists. You can read it for yourself in chapter three of the letter, but it goes something like this: The immense power of a horse is guided by the pressure of a small bit in its mouth. Huge ships are guided by small rudders. The tongue is also a small member, yet it boasts great exploits. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire, and the tongue is a fire. Every species of animal can be tamed, but no one can tame the tongue. With it we bless God, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth comes blessing and cursing. It ought not to be so.

Unknown and little read as I am, by what I write I am a teacher joining with other teachers of greater repute and larger audiences. The power of words is why prayers are offered for those who speak where many listen and write what many read that they may do their part in making the heart of the people wise, its mind sound, and its will righteous (BCP, 827). The words I offer may influence very few, but they’re on issues I know something about, and on which I spend time in reflection about how current events are pushing us into the future, and whether that is for good or ill.

Newspapers, books and magazines have been the primary platforms for writers on public affairs. First radio and then television were added in the 20th century. Before that, traveling lecturers could attract full auditoriums of townsfolk willing to pay to hear what they had to say. Now we have the internet where anyone can talk about anything in any way they want to. It’s an exploding nova version of London’s Hyde Park where for years anyone could stand on a soap box to address whoever was willing to listen to whatever was being said. It was also a place where the listening audience, if there was one, was free to speak their own piece in response, which often took the form of verbal ridicule and abuse. The internet offers far more opportunity for verbal ridicule and abuse, we now call trolling, than Hyde Park ever could. I don’t believe we’ve become less civil because of it, it’s just that we’ve made it more easy to be more uncivil to more people with less fear of retribution. But I digress.

My respondent’s “Who cares what you think” is mild by comparison to what others have said, and it’s still a good question. Maybe no one cares, but if it was meant that I should keep my words to myself, and have no right to speak, he/she is wrong. More challenging than being criticized is the moral obligation to say something when someone speaks words inciting injustice, bigotry, and disregard for the dignity of others. It is an obligation not to respond with insults, but with considered, informed rebuttal. I have a moral obligation to listen, when others detect the same in my words, and say so in a considered, informed way. I have a moral obligation to propose what I believe to be a better way, hoping to have some small influence on a future more just and equitable for all. I also have a moral obligation to listen to others, provided they speak with integrity and opinion informed by verifiable evidence.