Posted on 11/01/2001 2:10:58 PM PST by real saxophonist
Value of freedom immeasurable
By Reggie Rivers
Denver Post columnist
Thursday, November 01, 2001 - My father served in the U.S. Air Force for 23 years. I have four siblings who are career Air Force enlistees and, in the event of war, each of them knows that he or she may have to risk his or her life to defend the freedoms we have in this country.
Many men and women have died to protect our constitutional rights. The willingness to die is required of everyone in the military. Freedom is more valuable than a particular soldier's life, or even tens of thousands of soldiers' lives.
Shouldn't freedom be worth thousands of civilian lives, too?
Our national focus is on security. We want to be safe at home, safe in our cars, safe at work, safe on airplanes, safe at the mall and safe at the ball game. So acute is our need for security that we're willing to give up our freedom to get it.
Imagine if our men and women in uniform had the same attitude. Their commander gives the order to charge a hill, and they sit back and say, "Dang, Sarge, that looks kind of dangerous. I'm not sure this freedom we're defending is really worth the risk. What good is it to me if I get killed? Why don't we just give up some of the freedom and stay back here where it's safe?"
Our military doesn't do that. They put themselves in harm's way. They get shot, bombed, gassed, captured and tortured, because freedom is worth the price.
Where is our commitment as regular citizens? Shouldn't we be willing to risk our lives for freedom? As many as 6,000 civilians were killed on Sept. 11, and we're so terrified that we allow our legislators to strip away our freedoms and ratchet us down into a maximum-security prison of sorts.
A few weeks ago, President Bush urged us to live normal lives. He wanted us to get on airplanes, go to work and do all the things we'd normally do.
Part of that is to shore up our economy, but the real point is that by continuing to live according to our normal routines, we're defending freedom.
We're saying, "Yes, terrorists may kill a few thousand of us at a time, but that threat it not enough to make us cower in fear."
Unfortunately, that's exactly what we're doing - cowering.
We're allowing our lawmakers to strip away our freedoms and we're not even putting up a fight. We're refusing to charge the hill, because we're afraid that some of us may get hurt or killed.
Is freedom real or is it just a silly idea that can be indulged only when we're not under attack?
One of the many critical e-mails I've received during the past few weeks summed up my position more succinctly than I ever could. The writer, "Steve," wrote: "Reggie, your problem is that you fear the government more than you fear criminals and terrorists."
I smiled. Finally, someone who understands me. Our founding fathers also feared the dangerous, expansive, coercive tyranny of government far more than the threat of criminals or terrorists.
As we've seen by dramatic example, terrorists have a certain amount of power. They can scare us, hurt us and even kill us. But ultimately, they can't take away our freedoms; only we can do that.
If a criminal breaks into my house, I can defend myself and/or call the police. But if the government breaks into my house there's nothing I can do but stand and watch.
Yes, I fear the government more than I fear criminals. I'm not willing to let my concern about terrorists eclipse my commitment to freedom.
Are you?
Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers (reggierivers@clearchannel.com) writes Thursdays on The Post op-ed page and is a talk host on KHOW Radio (630 AM, weekdays from 3 to 5 p.m.).
Reggie has no problems, Reggie is right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.