American Individualism

Some people mistake individualism for the philosophy that everyone should do as they desire no matter how they treat others.  This is an irrationalistic, egoistic form of individualism, one centered on any belief or action that a person subjectively desires or that benefits them.  It is not about truth, though rationalistic individualism itself is true by logical necessity: one person's psychological traits, moral character, and so on does not have anything to do with another's, and people are morally free to do literally anything that is not immoral, no matter if it offends other people very deeply.  Someone can only be this kind of individualist for the right reasons as a rationalist (which entails not making assumptions, such as ironically believing in this correct sort of individualism only because of personal appeal).  American society is individualistic in a contrary and thus inherently irrational manner, one that cannot possibly be valid.  In the name of freedom of speech and religion, which are really rooted in the philosophical concept of freedom of belief, plenty of Americans conflate national legality with rationality and moral permissibility.  They think they have a moral right to believe, say, or do almost or perhaps up to anything, with potential conflicting exceptions depending on the person.

Very asininely, many of these proponents might consider themselves thoroughly devoted Christians committed to Biblical ideas.  Just in case someone actually thinks the Bible's moral doctrines are in any way compatible with pluralistic philosophy itself or behavioral freedom of religion, see Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 18:21, 20:1-5, Deuteronomy 7:1-5, 24-26, 12:1-3, 29-31, 13:1-18, 16:21-22, and 17:2-5.  It is not just that Judeo-Christianity being true would already exclude any contrary religion being true simultaneously (and Judeo-Christianity does not have to be true for this fact to be the case), but also that the Torah alone repeatedly says to purge pagan expression in full by capital punishment.  The New Testament only affirms the prescriptions of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-19, 15:3-9, Romans 3:31, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Hebrews 2:2, and many more), so it is untrue that the New Testament nullifies any of this.

All of this is aside from the objective logical fact that the very idea of freedom of speech or belief is contradictory; it is impossible for someone to have a moral right to believe, say, or do whatever they personally wish, even if it is false (metaphysically erroneous), assumed (epistemologically erroneous), or immoral.  More foundationally, it is also logically impossible for anyone to have any justification and thus a moral justification/right to believe in something false or assumed.  While morality might or might not ultimately exist, if there is such a thing, it cannot contradict the necessary truths of reason, and it is likewise impossible for people to have a right to not align with reason and morality.  Alternatively, if morality does not exist, then no one could have a right to anything, much less believing as they subjectively prefer, which would still be irrational; only logically necessary truths justify belief, and thus emotionalism, subjectivist individualism, and any other brand of irrationalism are false.  The law of the land is meaningless and irrelevant to these truths.

American individualism is in no way logically correct or Biblical, though its supporters might clamor to promote the delusional notion that it is both.  It is really about individuals enslaved to assumptions or emotionalism feeling comfortable with believing or doing as they subjectively please, with only arbitrary and invalid restrictions or none at all.  It is not about them doing as they please as long as it is within the confines of reason and morality.  Freedom for freedom's sake is erroneous.  No matter how intensely someone wants things to be otherwise, logical necessities are true whether or not they are recognized or celebrated, rendering any belief that contradicts them or that is based on epistemological assumptions invalid.  Many Americans instead assert that they have a right to any opinion they want, when opinion is by nature irrational, purely about preference and persuasion.

Even then, for instance, an American who alleges themself to be a Christian might simultaneously think that there are limits to freedom of religion.  Would they believe, inside or outside of the Christian worldview, that sacrificing children to a deity or pseudo-deity by fire (Deuteronomy 12:31) should be legally permitted under freedom of religion?  Probably not, I imagine, though they would then not only hold to an arbitrary and assumed moral boundary, but they would also betray the idea of freedom of religion—limited freedom of religion is not true freedom in this sense.  They might also hypocritically hold to freedom of religion and also think this freedom of religion, if it was valid, would somehow only apply to them.  In addition to all of this, the worldview of the Bible they superficially pretend to adhere to says to kill anyone who worships another god or merely entices someone to do so (Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 17:2-5).  Logically and Biblically, such a person is wrong on practically every level.