The social structure of Eurocentric history has been rooted in racism, typically initiated by whites toward non-whites, or people of color. Some of our founding fathers, most being southerners, are said to have promoted this everlasting racism in their support of slavery and pro-slavery resolutions to feuds between the northern and southern states. This all entails institutional racism, a blatant racial bias within our government system from early on. We now call this sort of racial bias white supremacy. White supremacy is more than just an internal ideology, though, as it has led to innumerable violent events and mass disruption amongst society. This social disorder has taken many different forms through the years, some of which have surprisingly been favored by white Christians. White supremacists believe that whites maintain a structural advantage over people of color in every aspect of life, from education to politics. They argue that whites have always been and will always be better and more civilized than people of color. From slavery to modern-day Ku Klux Klan, anyone in his or her right mind can tell white supremacy is more than just explicit incarnations. Although many modern-day Americans try to resist this way of thinking, the ways in which most of them are going about this only dismisses white supremacy instead of actually rejecting it. Therefore, while times have changed and more and more Euroamericans are seeing the light that is equality, more must be done in order to fully restore justice to and be in solidarity with the marginalized non-white community. The Supreme Court needs to strongly consider tighter restrictions on the freedom of speech, as the first amendment should not warrant bigoted events such as the rally in Charlottesville. On a smaller scale, as Christian citizens, it is also our right and duty to call out white supremacy when we see it and to teach Christ’s word on diversity and inclusion to not only ourselves but also the communities where we are placed. Finally, to restore justice, it is necessary that we all unite to support victims of white supremacy and know where to draw the line in our conversations about the subject matter.
The first step in restoring justice to victims of white supremacy on a large scale is for the Supreme Court to put tighter restrictions on the freedom of speech and to take action to deter further mass physical aggression. The first amendment to the Bill of Rights reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (Amendment 1).” There has existed much scrutiny over whether or not there should be limits on this amendment in times past, so in the second installment of PBS documentary series Constitution USA, titled “It’s a Free Country”, Peter Sagal explores the intentions of the right to free speech (Wizner). He delves into the “bland” wording of the Bill of Rights to uncover the true meaning of our forefathers’ wording of the first amendment. Sagal reveals that it was not until after the 1950s when American citizens truly recognized the significance behind the right to free speech. They discovered that groups like the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazis were allowed to freely express their views publicly because the Supreme Court actually upheld their freedom of speech, despite their controversial actions. Sagal encounters UCLA law professor and “The Volokh Conspiracy” blogger, Eugene Volokh, who emphasizes the broadness of the Supreme Court’s protection. He also emphasizes the fact that virtually any and all opinion-based statements are protected because a controversial statement might not be well received, but it is a statement of opinion. Volokh, born in the Soviet Union, argues that the reason the American Bill of Rights works so well because Democracy would not mean much without the freedom to argue. Volokh is correct in some cases, such as in political debates and situations like such which are not physically violent, but sometimes this freedom to argue gets out of hand and evolves into a physically aggressive uproar.
Our society sees a lot of this said physically aggressive uproar in the white supremacy movement. White supremacists see their freedom of speech as a freedom to offend and assault. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” the article in which “It’s a Free Country,” was publicized, dives deeper into the freedom to offend. Controversial British Indian writer, Salman Rushdie, says he believes that without the freedom to offend, the freedom of expression ceases to exist. Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy and Technology project, fires back using historical evidence in support. Among this historical evidence, he mentioned several incidents including one in Gainesville, Florida where a Christian pastor set a Koran on fire, another in which a multitude of funerals for soldiers killed in war have been disrupted by extremists holding signs reading “God hates Fags”, and “Thank God for dead soldiers,” and a final incident in which an Illinois neo-Nazi group attempted to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors with swastikas in hand. Wizner says that such repulsive speech would be illegal in many countries and calls for the imposition of limitations on offensive speech. Wizner also suggests that the imposition of limits would evoke even more disruption, as he says, “a society in which provocative speech could be punished would be a society without controversial politics, or art, or ideas…it would be a society wholly alien to America’s founders” (Wizner). While he may be correct in saying this, Wizner does not realize his shortcomings, because while our founders held some pretty controversial beliefs, our country has evolved in its understanding of race and social standards. The non-white supremacist portion of the country has also discovered the downfalls of our ancestors in their malicious, pro-slavery ways. If one were to take simply what Wizner states in his closing statement of this article, one could easily understand this to protect acts of white supremacy.
The root issue of white supremacy is that proponents, white people, believe they are superior in every way. They believe that since our country is rooted in racism, and thus, white supremacy, their actions are permitted. If those said actions are condemned in any form, white supremacy groups revolt with horrific rallies such as the Charlottesville rally this past year. Nationalist groups such as neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan have a strong history in our nation, and the groups are once again on the rise due to both the lax regulations on the freedom of speech and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. The extremist groups pick and choose what they want to hear on the news, especially in context of statements given by leaders such as President Trump. Although the President has not been the most outspoken leader on the topic, both sides of the spectrum hear his words and tend to morph what he says into something that either strongly aligns with or strongly opposes their beliefs, and this partially lends contribution to the extreme uproar that is white supremacy. This could all be prevented if the government were to place more regulations on the definition of freedom of speech. The first step in doing so is to call out those who hold position to recognize not only when their adversaries speak in a controversial and harmful manner, but when their accomplices do so as well. As our leaders grow more aware of and are able to identify their own faults, they may be able to institute more changes within our laws, whether that be on a state level or on a federal level. As former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg said in an open letter this past September, “Respectful and reasoned dialogue is essential in a democratic society, and its survival depends on leaders who will vehemently defend the rights of speakers” (Treene). To me, this means our leaders must step up to the plate to call out speakers when they speak contentiously as well as defend their words, because while words hurt, white supremacy and the freedom of speech are woven together on a much deeper, move violent level. While it is excessive to place restrictions on words, it is the actions that must be regulated; therefore, the government should punish those who act on their words, particularly white supremacists in this day and age, in order to aid in the hindrance of future bigoted rallies.
On a much smaller scale, Christians must take action to thwart further acts of nationalism. As followers of Christ, we are commanded to love each other as we would ourselves. Galatians 5 tells us if we “bite and devour” each other, we could be led into destruction (Galatians 5:13-15; NIV). This biting and devouring mentioned can, and should, be put into the context of the war between white supremacists and people of color and their sympathizers. God has blessed us with the gift of freedom, but in that freedom, we are restrained from participating in acts of the flesh that place us in bondage to begin with, such as the biting and devouring mentioned in verse 15. Those who choose to participate in such activities “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:19-21; NIV). Such activities do not fall within the Gospel, and are therefore prohibited by the Gospel and the Spirit. One cannot live fully through the Gospel if one cannot live in relationship with other fellow humans as well as God. This has been a trend with white supremacists and other Nationalist groups for years, dating back to the time of Jesus. Then, Jews were not allowed to fellowship with the Gentiles, however Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and Jesus all challenged that rule for the better. As this group did in the first century, Christians of the twenty-first century must do so as well in order to defy narcissism and create community. Simply leaving the issue alone actually promotes de-humanization from groups like white supremacists. Although we must acknowledge and respect all viewpoints, we must speak out against immoral and ungodly remarks. Because of our country’s vulnerability to such actions, in supporting, and therefore loving, each and every one of our neighbors, we must be careful to not promote the systemic racism – that is racism which “considers the way that material attitudes, emotions, habits, and practices are embedded in social institutions,”- which is ever-present in our society (Sechrest, 655). Christians should remind those who do not act in a godly manner that God is not racist and calls us to live in love with one another. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself was Jewish and he accepted all communities, minorities and the privileged; however, to restore communal acceptance, he challenged the groups when he observed faulty behavior. We see such shalom exhibited in Matthew 9 when Jesus replies to the Pharisees, “it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Such response exemplifies the way in which Christians should respond to both people of color and whites when the opposing party speaks out problematically.
If we are to live in Christ, we must ourselves do as Christ would do, as well as remind those around us to do as Christ would do. Racism can come from many sides, not only “privileged” groups, and it is the responsibility of Christians, especially those of European heritage, to defy racist remarks. Racism, according to The Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics, “assumes the hierarchical ordering and rejection of other races and the ideas, customs, and practices associated with them” (Sechrest, 655). We can identify such rejection in the slogans chanted in Charlottesville, “Russia is our friend,” “White Lives Matter,” and “No more brother wars,” the latter being a simpler way of saying that those of European descent should not fight one another because it only weakens the privilege of the white race and strengthens those of other races (Ashford). In essence, this is a call to action for White Nationalists. People fail to see that the Black Lives Matter movement also rejects other races in its actions, but the difference is that the movement is more focused on policy than protest, and it is very clear that white supremacist protests are much more brutal than those of Black Lives Matter (Ross and Lowery). If Christians do not act in solidarity with but also denounce certain statements by members of the Black Lives Matter movement, both parties could place the blame on Christians, and therefore God, because the blatant discrimination present in our society “presents a frontal assault on the Christian gospel, a denial of human dignity and a subversion of our democracy (Ashford).” The Dictionary of Scripture and Ethics points out the fact that in the Old Testament, God does not discriminate between people, so as God did so, we must do so as well (Burridge, 235). The same article also asserts it is significant that God professes that “there is no longer Jew or Greek…in Christ Jesus” in Galatians 3:28. This very well may be the most outright indication that Christians are to treat everyone equally in the entire Bible. Therefore, we must act as activists in support the freedom of speech while also condemning non-Christ-like words or actions as we are all made in the image of God and deserve to be treated as such.
As Christians, we must act in a Christ-like manner and defy actions that do not fully live through the gospel, but as basic citizens of the United States, we must also stimulate activism in our society to speak out to the ever-present racism and discrimination and know where to draw the line when acting in this defiance. Many Americans do not realize the role they play as United States citizens in that they support the right to free speech but do not delve into deeper research on what the intent of the right is. While on the surface level, free speech sounds like a basic human right, of which it is, when deciding whether blatant acts of Nationalism which somewhat reflect the actions of Nazi Germany should be permitted, Americans should take a step back to discover the bigger picture encompassing free speech. We do need to support the freedom of speech as it is a right given to all mankind, but we should promote living in harmony with all communities and be vigilant of those who participate in actions that fall below the standards of humanity. Words alone cannot be argued due to the protection of the law, but they can be corrected before they are acted on, which is what Americans should focus on doing. It is when words turn into acts of harmful nature and mass dismay for an entire group of people that the right to free speech is no longer a right but an abused right. The strong Right believes there is no abusing the freedom of speech when it is speech that agrees with the values of the Right. Some believe “the Left is trying to overturn everything it does not like about America, all at once” and the Left actually hates America and everything it stands for (Gainer). The argument between the two sides has its roots in the freedom of speech, since everything reverts back to public statements and actions. The real underlying issue of the argument is not the argument itself, as such is simply democracy in action; it is the action on the words said within the argument. Within White Supremacy, social class is demeaned and privilege for the middle to upper-class white male is promoted to the point where democracy is actually belittled. In a society promoting such structure, it is easy to compare to Hitler’s Nazi Party Germany, especially when politicians or leaders of some form step up to the plate in support of the institution. For some Leftists, they believe all it takes is one powerful ringleader to take position, currently that ringleader being President Trump, and America could turn to mass chaos. These same leftists believe white privilege is simply the beginning of the “White Supremacist capitalist patriarchy” ideology reassembling in our society (Liu). While it is accurate that our country was formed on a privileged white patriarchal ideology, the entire system in which the law was created has adapted to the growing individualism of all minority groups. Certainly, the country will not revert back to slavery, but it will grow in its acceptance of the minorities. It takes time and effort on all parts, from participants to bystanders to victims of white supremacy in order to even begin eradicating the mayhem of the current structural racism. People do not understand and are unwilling to commit to the time and work it takes to do so, but are all about immediacy of relief. Citizens of the United States should make it a duty of theirs to take action whenever any form of racism is identified, as this is the only way we can heal our society. Healing cannot happen immediately and it especially cannot happen if we do not start speaking out against white supremacy and other controversial speech.
In this, we must know where the line must be drawn to ensure we are not doing more harm than good. The ability to defend oneself is a basic human right and sometimes people go too far and damage this right, as their action seems to act in defense of a group who cannot defend themselves, even though the group can, in fact, do so. Sometimes what is said in defense of marginalized people of color is meant in a seemingly harmless way, but can be interpreted in a demeaning way by those who are supposed to feel protected. The best way this can be avoided is by asking individuals if and how they would like to be defended in the specific situation or in the case of a rally,