Book Review: In Justice by Alan Sears

In Justice by Alan Sears describes a story similar to Orwell’s “1984”, but relating to first amendment freedoms, specifically religious freedoms. This issue remains at the forefront today, whether it’s speaking on your beliefs, religious displays, so-called “hate speech”, and more. The book considers what might happen if today’s politically correct movement continues to grow.

Three friends say good-bye after graduation from Princeton. Each is bound by high ideals and a resolve to change the world … but unable to anticipate the dramatic events that will bring them back together.

Each Sunday Pastor Pat Preston stands behind the pulpit of his Nashville mega-church, hoping to change the world by proclaiming biblical truth.

Newly appointed US Assistant Attorney General John Knox Smith is out to change the world one arrest at a time. He is determined to mandate equality and wipe out intolerance by criminalizing hate speech. And he will prosecute anyone who discriminates against the new legal classes of people he has helped create … even Pat Preston.

Standing between them is their friend Matt Branson, who now works in the Justice Department.

That’s the basic plot of the book; we won’t give away the ending, you’ll have to read it for yourself. But is such an idea possible? Many might say the events portrayed in the book simply couldn’t happen — after all, we have constitutional rights! For example, the following speech could never happen, as John Knox Smith accepts the position as head of the DTED (Diversity and Tolerance Enforcement Division):

Since it is impossible to acknowledge all the religious and belief systems of the American people, it is our view that any acknowledgment, favor, or accommodation of a particular faith tradition must be seen as an illegal establishment of religion and in direct conflict with the First Amendment. (“In Justice”, page 24)

A growing movement in the country reads the First Amendment as creating a secular, atheist society where religion is not permitted in any public situation — government or otherwise. School valedictorians (as private citizens) can’t mention God in their acceptance speech, and a California shopping mall even banned religious and political discussion by shoppers (not employees)! Was that the founders ideal?

… unfortunately there are still some Protestant evangelicals and conservative Roman Catholics who remain unreformed, still clinging to their guns, religion, and a theology from the Middle Ages. There are even a few Jews who adhere to the teachings of Moses and the prophets. (“In Justice”, page 109)

It’s important to understand the first amendment is freedom to religion, not freedom from religion, although it’s been twisted quite a bit recently. To understand the meaning, simply look to the way it’s been applied for the first 180 years of the country. Certainly nobody understood the first amendment to imply the creation of a religious-free country … until recently.

As such, Mr. Smith’s hypothetical speech, and the creation of a DTED division could be our future — and the elimination of free speech by redefining tolerance as a result.

… we are working to bridge religious divides. We’re taking on violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of religion. And we invite members of Congress and clergy and active citizens like all of you here to join us…

Oops, that’s not from the book, it’s current events (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the National Prayer breakfast Feb 4 2010). For those thinking the events portrayed “could never happen here”, events are moving in that direction. The question remains, do you have free speech or not? You can’t “sort of” have free speech. As the argument goes, can you yell “fire” in a crowded movie? Does free speech cover that?

Now we are faced with the question whether or not [name of group] should be allowed to run such an ad …

Darn, that’s not from the book either. The Tim Tebow Superbowl ad brought out many groups saying it shouldn’t be allowed to air (not just they disagreed with it, but it shouldn’t even be played) — placing themselves in the position of approving any “free speech” (approving free speech is quite an oxymoron, don’t you think?).

A free society requires open debate and discussion. Sure, you’ll be exposed to ideas you don’t agree with (or want to hear), that’s part of being a member of a free society. But attempts to restrict speech — no matter how good the intention — eventually restrict your speech.

One of the great ideas about the Internet remains it’s wildly unregulated nature. That is of course at the same time one of it’s greatest strengths, and one of it’s problems. At some point, look for the government to attempt content regulation of the Internet, with the justification either being national security, or safety of the children. It’s coming.

Does anyone (well, some do) want censorship of the Internet? Do you remember when the only news you could get was ABC, CBS, and NBC? Now consider how much information you have access to — sure some of it isn’t right, but you’ve got to use critical thinking skills to do your own research. “If it’s on the Internet it must be true” obviously is a horrible way to think.

In short, free speech is under attack — the so-called “hate speech” laws really boil down to “anything I don’t want to hear”; we see atheists attempting to eradicate religion simply because they violently disagree with it. But free speech means you may hear things you disagree with — it protects the atheist and religious people of all faiths; in a free society open discussion and debate remains not only healthy, but essential.

Curtailing of rights occurs quickly. Ask yourself, one year ago would you have thought the government would take over car companies and banks? What seems impossible now becomes quite likely later.

Yet groups have attempted to change the meaning of tolerance and free speech recently, and “In Justice” demonstrates what could happen if those trends continue — pastors prosecuted and thrown in jail for nothing more than expressing religious views (prosecutions displaying the exact opposite of tolerance toward religion). It’s a work of fiction and not meant to be taken as fact, but a warning to all citizens to work to protect free speech — all speech (even that with which you disagree with).

You either have free speech or not, and books like In Justice and “1984” explain what occurs as those rights become controlled by the government. It doesn’t matter what side of any issue you’re on, you should be concerned when your free speech becomes curtailed; “reasonable restrictions on free speech” becomes the ultimate expression of Doublethink.

Will the book be our future, or remain fiction?

DISCLAIMER: I received a free copy of the book for this review but no other compensation.