I for one am weary of hearing the stale line “I’m entitled to my opinion” as justification for every random, irrational string of words spoken without thought, without logical foundation, and without reasonable supporting evidence. So let’s talk about what constitutes an opinion and then to what extent we’re all entitled to have one.
First, opinions fall into several categories. At the lowest level, there are personal preferences. Coke tastes better than Pepsi (although I used to think Pepsi tasted better than Coke). Chocolate is the food of the gods. Dark chocolate is much better than milk chocolate. Wine is better than beer. Red wine is better than white wine. Tattoos are ugly. All of them. Pants worn around the hips or knees look stupid. (There’s a reason that narrow piece of fabric sewn onto the top of a pair of trousers is called a waistband, not a hipband or a kneeband. There was your first clue!) Blue is not a pleasing color on the walls. Cats are better pets than dogs. Oldies rock is better than modern rock. Nordstrom is the awesomest department store. Florida’s gulf-coast beaches are better than our east-coast ocean beaches. Large, jet-black eyebrows on gray-haired women look scary. Bikinis on older, wrinkly women look a little scary. These are my opinions, and I would say I’m entitled to these opinions because they’re matters of personal taste—or you may say lack thereof. Whatever. We all have such opinions, and I’d argue that we’re all entitled to them.
There are caveats, however, on these opinions. I am entitled to have them, but I’m not entitled to speak them whenever the mood strikes. I am not entitled to judge others according to my personal tastes and preferences. Although I find tattoos unattractive, I have no right to lobby for closing tattoo parlors or to search for trumped-up “evidence” that tattoos are bad or ungodly; I have no right to harass people who have tattoos by making mean comments; and I certainly have no right to discriminate against people who have tattoos. Other people are as entitled to find tattoos attractive and meaningful as I am to find them unattractive. I also have no right to make snide comments to people wearing low-riding trousers, to deny them service if I were a business owner, or to categorize everyone who wears such trousers in a judgmental way. And I have no right to see my tastes as superior to anyone else’s or to think of myself as more sophisticated or intelligent because ob-viously people who prefer dark chocolate are far more savvy than those unrefined people who like milk chocolate. OB-viously!
Another category of opinion is our personal religious and philosophical beliefs. This is a delicate area, needless to say. Many of our beliefs can’t really be justified by logical, tangible evidence; yet we accept them at the very core of our being. We live and die by them. They are true in our minds and souls at a level which transcends logic and scientific data. And I would argue that we are entitled to these beliefs so long as they do not involve inflicting harm on another living being.
Now here’s what I think we are not entitled to when it comes to personal beliefs. I don’t believe I am entitled to ridicule another person’s belief system, even though I disagree with it. There’s a huge difference between disagreeing and judging or ridiculing. The fact that I am a Christian and a Presbyterian means I obviously don’t see things the same way a Muslim, Catholic, atheist, or agnostic does. That’s okay. They don’t see things the same way I do. That does not, however, give any of us the right to ridicule or discriminate against the others. And in the debate regarding the existence of God, both sides are guilty of judgment and intolerance. I would argue that although both sides are entitled to their opinions, neither side is entitled to judgment or intolerance against the other.
Here are two definitions of “opinion” from online dictionaries:
“A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”;
“A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.”
The second definition is also the one offered by my American Heritage College Dictionary.
According to these definitions, opinions do not have to be based on fact, knowledge, or proof. However, argument—the art of persuasion and the core of public discourse—does require fact, knowledge, and proof. So yes, you can make statements which you simply pulled out of your dark space—and probably all of us have from time to time—but if you want to argue those statements, you’re going to need something to back them up. Effective, responsible public discourse requires argument.
Conspiracy theories are not responsible or honest, should not be stated as fact, and have no place in public discourse. Claims that our president was born in Kenya (promoted, as everyone recalls, by the person who is now presenting himself as the American messiah), when he has a birth certificate issued in Hawaii, are irresponsible, dishonest, and dumb. Claims that our president is of the Muslim faith, when he has repeatedly given clear statement of his Christian beliefs, are hateful, dishonest, and irresponsible in the extreme. No one is entitled to judge another person’s faith. It may be fair to say you don’t think a certain person lives by what you’ve been taught are Christian values, but you have no right to state as fact that another person is not a Christian.
Claims that the Holocaust never occurred or that the moon landing was staged are equally ridiculous and indefensible. These are examples of “opinions” to which no one is entitled and which also have no place in public discourse. No one is entitled to an opinion which contradicts historical or scientific fact. I’m baffled by those who deny and scoff at the fact that climate change is occurring when they have no evidence or basis for their denial and when there is strong scientific evidence that it is occurring. Although there may be room for opinion on some of the specifics, denying clear scientific evidence is not an intelligent or responsible position. Where there may be some room for argument is the question of what causes climate change: to what extent is it being caused by human activity and to what extent is it simply part of ongoing natural processes? There may also be room for argument about what needs to be done to slow down or reverse the process. But there’s no room for denial of scientific evidence unless the deniers can present other scientific evidence to support their position.
Claims that one of our presidential candidates has been responsible for a string of murders and should be imprisoned are reprehensible, and anyone repeating such claims is dishonest and irresponsible—especially when that person is her political opponent or one of his rabid supporters. No one is entitled to opinions which are outright lies, and it’s our individual responsibility to verify the accuracy of information before we repeat it as fact or opinion. Everyone who’s spent any time on the Internet, and that’s pretty much everyone these days, knows it’s possible to “prove” just about anything. No matter what you believe, you’ll find someone who agrees with you and who has published “evidence” to support your claim. But as Abraham Lincoln said, “The problem with quotes on the Internet is that you can’t always be sure of their authenticity.”
Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights, and rational public discourse is one of our most sacred responsibilities as citizens. We are entitled to like dark chocolate more than milk chocolate and to believe as we choose regarding questions of faith, but we are not entitled to make sensational claims which contradict fact or to undermine our political process with irresponsible rhetoric. A lie is not an opinion. It’s just a lie.