By Matt Boswell, Guest Columnist
Last Sunday evening, a small group of folks from the congregation I pastor — Camas Friends Church — joined me in a prayer vigil across the street from the Patriot Prayer rally in Washougal. We held candles and prayed silently, mourning victims of gun violence. Those present with me believe the rhetoric and rallies of Patriot Prayer put vulnerable and marginalized folks in danger. We hoped our quiet presence might testify to a broader set of concerns than those being expressed across the street — to something even more fundamentally crucial than felt constitutional rights.
The expressed bedrock of the Patriot Prayer movement seems to be free speech and the non-interference of government, especially in regard to gun access and ownership. The apparent public distancing by Patriot Prayer’s leadership from the more violent and explicitly hate-filled messages associated with their movement rings hollow to me, sounding more like a move of organizational self-preservation than a legitimate condemnation. Any genuine, compassionate care for others that might exist in this movement is overshadowed by what strikes me as a kind of self-preserving paranoia.
Humans are co-responsible. While it is natural to assign blame and responsibility to individual persons, this is often a somewhat oversimplified move, a mental and/or legal convenience that may overlook the reality that humans are interconnected. We are webbed. We are adept at pretending we are not these things, shunning responsibility for others, forgetting who is harmed by a tax cut that benefits me personally, or by a bar of chocolate whose origin story is somewhat sinister, or by a convenient-for-me plastic container that may prove to be a part of a decidedly inconvenient-for-all problem.
“Free speech.” It sounds nice and noble. It has the word “free” in it, after all. I do not wish for myself the opposites of freedom — bondage, enslavement, imprisonment, etc. I am for free speech. But I am for it because it is a generally helpful principle, not because it is a sacred rule.
And that’s the problem at work: when our ethics becomes a question of “what’s the rule?” or perhaps, more honestly, “what things that make me feel good am I technically allowed to do?” rather than an ethic that asks “What should I do? What’s the truly good thing to do — good for me but also good for the whole?” A self-preserving, self-interested ethic is a shallow ethic whose barrenness we mask often by appealing to sacred documents (i.e., the Bible, the U.S. Constitution) to legitimize that which maintains our current, familiar way of life.