I know nothing good to say about that “church” in Wichita that has been chasing around the country making fools of themselves with protests at military funerals. I will neither defend nor explain these people. Yet, the Wichita people have the right of free speech, and it is entirely right that they are allowed to exercise this right.

I suggest a few things that should still be factored into our thinking about this situation, which suggestions are rather much a correction of what has been stated in the general media. Must I say it again? I disagree with and oppose this group. My argument is for freedom of speech.

I have difficulty recognizing this groups as a church. It appears to me the group is, in essence, a self-appointed preacher and his family pretending to be a church. But this, too, is their right.

They call themselves “Baptist.” Well, anyone can denominate him or herself, because there is no trademark to violate. There is no authority to grant use of the term. As a Baptist and one who has been published by Baptist publishing houses on Baptist polity and doctrine, I recognize nothing that is characteristic of Baptists. It’s not necessary for them to be organizationally related to some Baptist body to be called such, and they evidence almost nothing that is distinctly or even recognizably Baptist.

The media has gratuitously referred to them as “an evangelical group.” As I am also an evangelical, I don’t recognize any reason — or even excuse — to allow this identification either. If we asked those media people who used the term “evangelical” to define it, I am confident not one would come anywhere near a reasonable definition.

Not at all to defend the group or mitigate their actions, but in the interest of truthful reporting and fair play, I also remind that they did not do precisely what the news reports state or, especially, what the editorial condemnations claimed. They broke no local, state, or federal law in any of the instances. They remained the required distance from the funerals, they did not block traffic, and they committed no violence.

They did, in fact, disrupt funerals by their protests, but only in an emotional sense (which, admittedly, is very much what funerals are about). They violated good taste and common decency, to be sure, but no law or human right.

Yet the same media that jumped all over them for what they did (bad enough as it has been) has praised liberal protest groups that did trespass, block traffic, and perpetrate violence.

What most works up the media is these people do not preach the social and political liberalism so favored by much of the media. This is the specific sin for which they are attacked. The media is correct in its criticism, but wrong in its motives.

If we are not free to express our feelings and opinions, we are not free at all. If we gag others from free expression, not only do we deny them freedom but we enslave ourselves to our own oppression. This will eventually turn back against us. I am reminded of my great grandfather’s words in 1840: “I freed my slaves so they could be free, yes. But I freed my slaves so I could be free.”

The freedom I have to express my opinions in these columns comes at something of a cost. Part of that is I must read the opinions of yet others—some of which have been printed in other columns within this same newspaper. (I have to read, for instance, about one columnist’s sex life (or lack thereof), some creature named Milo, or neighbors named Bruce.)

In point of fact, the Herald gives me freedom to criticize the media generally although it is part of this.

Yet, this cost is light indeed. I thrive on contrary opinions. I very much need them in order to learn and grow. More than half of what I read in newspapers, magazines, and books is material with which I disagree.

Of course, when it comes to such offensive language and behavior as what is exhibited by those Wichita people, I don’t enjoy paying the price for free speech. But I pay it willingly. What wealth of freedoms it purchases is well worth the price.