The price of free speech

We are Americans. As Americans, we all enjoy the same rights and

freedoms unparalleled in other parts of the world. (A terrorist is

guaranteed certain freedoms in the United States that we could not

have if we went to their country.)

Unfortunately, we have forgotten that those rights also include

responsibilities. Yes, a rock/sports star has the right to rant and

rage and disavow being a role model. However, as a part of the

American society, we all need to take responsibility for how our

choices influence others. We are a nation of neighbors. If I play my

stereo late on a Saturday night, it will keep my neighbors awake. I

like my neighbors, so I don’t do that. They reciprocate. Even if I

didn’t like them, I would still respect their rights. Sometimes that

means I have to ask my friends to tone down their voices because

there is a baby sleeping next door.

This is the every day version of the biblical imperative to love

our neighbors as we love ourselves. Remember the golden rule?

Bottom line: I respect the Muslim students’ need for an

affirmation of faith during the ceremonies. At the same time, I would

challenge them to live beyond their rights and look to the fear of

their American neighbors. Is it worth the fight to lose a neighbor?

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

Having taught at UC Irvine for 22 years, I noted that recently the

atmosphere has changed and become charged. Students have informed me

of numerous unpleasant and unwarranted actions initiated by a number

of Muslim students on campus, which left them shaken and disturbed.

This is not the venue to list them, but I was persuaded by the

frequency of their reports that many of my students experienced such

negative encounters.

The intention to wear the green sash and the words of the Shahada

at graduation was yet another in a series of incitements. I think

highly of expressions of ethnic pride, but in a time of relentless

suicide bombings of civilians, the killing of our troops, the

beheadings of the innocent, the threats of mass terror, the wearing

of a garment identified with the barbarians of Hamas is an affront.

In my mind’s eye, I see the female Hamas bomber who struck in Gaza

earlier this year. The suicide killer was the first to be a mother,

as 21-year-old Reem Raiyishi orphaned a 3-year-old son and a

1-year-old daughter.

In a traditional pre-suicide videotape testimonial, Raiyishi,

holding an AK-47 assault rifle and wearing the green Hamas sash, said

she long-wanted “the honor” of being a suicide bomber and was “proud

to be the first female Hamas martyr.”

“I have two children and love them very much. But my love to see

God was stronger than my love for my children, and I’m sure that God

will take care of them if I become a martyr,” the woman from a

middle-class Palestinian background said.

This woman became a hero to some, a “shahida.” She and her

comrades who wear the green sash seek not only Israel’s utter

destruction, but hate Jews and Americans. This is what the green sash

and “Shahada,” martyrdom, have come to stand for, owing to their

association with murderous groups.

Yes, the students’ right to wear such offensive garb is protected

under the freedom of symbolic speech. I imagine I could wear an

armband bearing the exclamation “God Wills It!” This was the battle

cry with which Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade in 1095. It

was followed by seven more Crusades over a period of 200 years. The

Crusades were wars waged against Islam for control of what Christians

called the Holy Land. The savagery of these wars remains unforgotten

and unforgiven in the Muslim consciousness. The Church defined

violence during the Crusades as a sacred act. Anyone “taking the

cross” to fight the infidel was offered indulgences, and, if killed,

assured a place in heaven. My wearing of such an armband, featuring

Crusader colors and its motto, may be interpreted as inoffensive.

After all, “God Wills It” is the theological belief of many people

today, and colors are just colors. But that expression, on a garment

that appropriates Crusader imagery, might well cause offense among

Muslim students.

One of the lessons I hope young people grow into is that just

because something is possible does not make it necessarily

permissible. Associating oneself with terrorists, who are the sworn

enemies of freedom, who are implacable enemies of the United States

itself, and who seek the destruction of our way of life, is worse

than sophomoric -- it is despicable.

RABBI MARK MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

The Daily Pilot has given this controversy lots of print. Few have

simply celebrated with the June 19 UC Irvine graduates.

I congratulate all graduates, as the value of education is

unquestionable, and college degrees are precious. I applaud all who

went through the commencement celebrations; doing so was a gift to

themselves and to their beloveds. One of my own deepest regrets is

that I did not participate in a similar ceremony when I received my

bachelors in l968 because my Dad died before the next transition rite

in my life, and he would have appreciated seeing me graduate from the

University of California.

I did not participate in my graduation because my senior year job

was in the caps-and-gowns department, and I was paid triple time for

working on our busiest day. Some of those gowns and caps were

returned with evidence of having been used to make statements similar

to those made in Irvine on June 19. Signs were still attached to

some; others were painted to express 1968 perspectives. I remember

one gown being returned with military honors pinned to it. Many had

that image which is either the master’s logo or the symbol of peace.

Having witnessed dozens of commencements as the campus minister of

the Episcopal Church at UC Berkeley, I have seen graduates make

statements that I’ve considered to be outrageous and offensive, from

streakers to banners castigating particular persons. In context, the

Muslim students’ green stoles clearly are protected by the First

Amendment to our Constitution. I applaud the integrity with which

they made their statement, and I applaud the dignity Jewish students,

and others, showed by celebrating in their own graduation ceremonies.

I am not sure of the meaning of the stoles with the Arabic word,

and I do not want to criticize what I do not understand. If “shahada”

supports suicide bombers and their ilk, I certainly am opposed; our

Anglican Church in the Middle East has clearly condemned such heinous

actions. But if, as I suspect, the students’ intent was to witness

that “there is no god but God ...”, then I stand with children of God

rather than with those who embrace hedonistic materialism as god.

Tensions between Jews and Muslims and Christians are far from

confined to UC campuses, of course. UC Irvine has a wonderful

resource in its Interfaith Center on campus. Jewish and Islamic

groups meet there; our Episcopal campus ministry is centered there.

Interfaith dialogue is good, period! More is better! I wonder if, and

hope that, there are new ways Christians can be helpful in enabling

such communication.

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Parish Church

Corona del Mar

The American Nazi party more than 20 years ago won the right to

march in Skokie, Ill., a town well known for its large number of

Jewish residents and concentration camp survivors. The American Civil

Liberties Union’s stand for free speech was nowhere more

uncompromising than in their support of the Nazi Party’s First

Amendment rights, to the outrage of many. I agree with the principle

that you may say what you wish, even if I don’t like it or agree, or

if I am not even exactly sure what you mean by it. (There are, of

course, exceptions, such as the classic example that you may not

shout “fire” in a crowded theater if there is not one.)

When I was in high school, three Unitarian students in the Des

Moines public schools won a Supreme Court case affirming their right

to wear black armbands to protest government policy in Vietnam.

(Vietnam War protesters in 1965 Iowa were considered traitors.) The

court found the wearing of armbands to be “symbolic acts,” included

within the meaning of free speech and thus protected by the First

Amendment. The case firmly established that students do not “shed

their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”

Concerning the risk of disturbance, Justas Fortas pointed out that

“apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to

freedom of expression.” When the actions of those expressing their

views do not impinge upon the rights of others and are not in

themselves disruptive, the possibility that others may respond by

causing disruption should not be used as a reason to ban free speech.

I attended commencement at UC San Diego this month, and I was

amazed by the variety of apparel worn under and on the gowns, not to

mention the decorations, signs and messages written on caps and

stoles.

The provost was handed a paper by each student with his or her

name written on it, and then dutifully announced, “Jane I love you

Mom and Dad Smith,” “Jim Magnificent Bastard Brown” and several

controversial political statements in lieu of middle names.

The universities should continue to offer courses, public forums

and every educational opportunity to help students to develop the

values and skills needed to live together in a diverse community.

Preventing freedom of speech is not the solution. Students are the

hope of the future, but school is a microcosm of the global

community. We should not be surprised that these serious problems

have not yet been solved at UCI any more than at other places around

the world.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa