25 Years Later, 1984 Seems Closer Than Ever
It was 1984. I was in the eighth grade and had made a rather peculiar new year’s resolution. I was going to read George Orwell’s 1984 in 1984. Understand that as the sun rose on the “me” decade of the 80′s, the year 1984 had an almost Y2K mystique about it for those familiar with Orwell’s work. In 1948, Orwell envisioned a dystopian future in which a minority ruling class of elitists runs the world, controlling the citizenry not by dictating what it may or may not do, but rather by dictating what it may or may not think. For all you younger folks who think Big Brother is just a reality show on TV, you may find it interesting that it was Orwell who introduced us to Big Brother, the ever-watchful, god-like eye of the state who never missed a thing. The Thought Police were always on duty.
Today, 25 years later, some of the ideologies upon which Orwell’s nightmarish regime were based seem frighteningly prescient. Many parallels can be drawn between Orwell’s vision and modern society, some more evident than others, but I want to focus on one of the prevalent themes of 1984 that seems to keep coming up in the news of late – thoughtcrime. Orwell described thoughtcrime as “the essential crime that contained all others in itself.” The totalitarian regime of 1984, called simply the Party, had gone so far as to not only legislate appropriate, legal speech (Newspeak, Orwell called it – eerily reminiscent of political correctness), but to also dictate legal and illegal thought. The Party maintained that if they could control the thoughts of the citizens, they could remain in power indefinitely. By the Party’s own confession, power was their ultimate and only goal.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.”
It would be difficult to argue that remaining in power is not the goal of a great number, if not the vast majority, of political insiders small and great in America. The recent switching of party affiliation of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter had little or nothing to do with a change in his ideology. Rather, he saw a significant challenge facing him in the upcoming Republican primary, and so to increase his chances of remaining in office, he switched parties. The elevation of political expedience over principle is hardly limited to government at the federal level, however. In the recent legalization of homosexual marriage in the state of Vermont, the first state to do so as a legislative act rather than as a response to a court order, the outcome came down to a single vote in the Vermont House needed to override the governor’s veto. The final voting house member, Jeff Young, was a first-term representative who switched his vote, having voted no for the bill to become law, but then voting yes to override the veto. Published reports say that Young is still philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but that he decided voting with his party would help him be a more effective lawmaker.
“You realize that, you know, it’s a poker game in some ways. Chips on the table. I’m a freshman. I have no chips. If I…had 20 years of chips, I probably could play any card I want. I don’t have that option. It’s the way the political game is played.” – Jeff Young
From his own mouth, Mr. Young declared that it is more important to remain in a position of power than to defend a principle in which he supposedly believes. Jesus said that our “yes” ought to be “yes”, and our “no”, “no”. American politicians want us to allow them to say “yes” and “no” at the same time so that they can please enough of the people enough of the time to stay in office.
What does any of that discussion have to do with thoughtcrime? I am glad you asked. At the top of the latest newsfeeds is the latest incarnation of the federal hate crimes bill, or I should say, the latest update to the federal hate crimes law. Indeed, such a law has existed at the federal level since 1969, allowing for greater penalties for crimes motivated by hatred toward a person or group based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. Without doubt, the statue was motivated by the racial turmoil of the 1960′s as African Americans struggled to be free from societal prejudice. Yesterday, the U.S. House voted to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes. So-called social conservatives and people of faith, primarily Christians, vehemently oppose this legislation, fearing that it will limit the rights of believers to speak freely about what the Bible teaches with respect to homosexuality. Supporters of the bill poo poo those objections, claiming that “the only language that would be criminalized is language that would meet the requirements of conspiracy or solicitation or direct incitement. Sharing opinions on things, even opinions others consider discriminatory, cannot be criminalized,” said Frederick Lawrence, law professor at George Washington University.
Mr. Lawrence will have to pardon my skepticism. What happens when those holding the power to prosecute and punish redefine the terms, as our highest courts have done with reckless abandon of late? If it is easy for me to conceive of an argument whereby the teaching of a religious doctrine can constitute a conspiracy, evangelism can constitute solicitation, and a church service can constitute direct incitement, how much more are those who oppose the moral code of Christianity going to be able to put together very clever, and very convincing arguments to that effect? Yes, I am speculating, but the writing is on the proverbial wall. Once our government ventures into the realm of punishing people’s thoughts and emotions, and not solely their actions, it takes on the role of God and religion, defining not only what is appropriate behavior, but also what is appropriate belief.
Do not misunderstand me. A biblical worldview absolutely has established bounds of right and wrong thinking. The difference is that it is God, who knows everything and has always been there, who establishes the rules of moral thinking and conduct, and not a popularly-elected oligarchy concerned primarily with the preservation of power above all other goals. Do not be deceived. This legislation has nothing to do with protecting anyone. Actual crimes are already punishable under the existing law, from slander, to assault, to murder. Ultimately this legislation will prove to be about controlling not only what people may say, but what they may believe as well.
If you think I’m way over the edge of reason here, consider for a moment the much-publicized remarks of Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean in response to a question posed by Perez Hilton. Mr. Hilton is quoted as asking, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” It is abundantly obvious that the question is asking for a statement of opinion, a statement of belief. What do you think, Miss Prejean, that other states should do in response to the issue of same-sex marriage? The answer Carrie gave was like the shot heard round the world given the amount of media attention it has received.
“Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage…And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.”
The response infuriated Hilton, who went on his own blog and hurled profanity-laced insults at Prejean, accusing her of being stupid, among other things. The media has reported that, when pressed for a reason why he was so dissatisfied with her answer, Hilton said that she needed to be more inclusive with her answer, a uniter and inspirer, not a divider. I find it interesting that Hilton considered her answer to be so divisive and so politically incorrect. Prejean said later that she was trying to be biblically correct and not politically correct, and for that, she is to be commended. However, if we examine her answer, it is clear that she was being a lot more inclusive, uniting, inspiring, and compassionate than she could have been while presenting a biblical worldview. She started off by lauding the concept of liberty, the ultimate American ideal. Others in her position might have said that there ought to be laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, but she did no such thing. She said, “In America, you can choose, and I think that’s great.” She went on to truthfully answer the question she was given, i.e., what do you think? What do you believe? For that, Perez Hilton made it abundantly clear that she didn’t pass the test of one worthy of representing the beliefs of her nation. She ran afoul of the thought police. She committed a thoughtcrime, the essential crime that contains all others in itself.
I find Perez Hilton’s assessment particularly odd since, by any and all practical and verifiable statistical measures, Miss Prejean does represent the position of the majority of Americans. It was implied by her detractors that she did not represent the people of California well with her answer, but if memory serves, the people of California were asked in the last election what they thought about same-sex marriage, and the majority agreed with Prejean. In every state where the issue has been put to a vote of the people, 30 so far, the people have agreed with Prejean. To say that Prejean’s answer was divisive is a dubious assertion given the facts. Perez claimed that Miss California did not lose the competition because of her beliefs, but because of her answer to the question, but this is disingenuous on his part. He knows as well as the rest of us that you cannot separate the answer from the belief. Did he want her to lie? Is dishonesty a quality the judges are looking for in Miss USA? No, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Hilton, and those like him, do not want the Carrie Prejean’s of the world to lie. They want her to give the answer they are looking for and be sincere about it. Her thinking must be in line with the desired orthodoxy.
By this time you may think that this article was all about homosexuality, but it is not. That is simply the hot-button issue around which the deeper issue I am trying to address is currently centered. There is a discernible push from powerful forces in our society and our government to make the desired orthodoxy become the established orthodoxy. The question is not simply, “Is homosexuality or same-sex marriage right or wrong?” Rather, the question is, “Is it right or wrong for an American to believethat homosexuality or same-sex marriage is wrong?” The same question could be asked of a host of other moral issues from abortion to pornography. When the government passes laws that punish motives, thoughts, and beliefs, it is saying to its citizens that they should look to government and not God for what they ought to believe. If that is not a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, I do not know what is. We may not be living in the Orwellian dystopia yet, but the legality of holding a biblical worldview is very much in jeopardy.
I will leave you with one final quote from 1984 as food for thought.
“We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
