If we can’t stop people from wanting to believe in something, and if it’s inevitable that most people will want to have, or be, leaders, then it’s important that we have structures that allow the ideas, and the leaders, to be criticized. That’s one of the most important functions of things like free speech, free association, and the like. It was also the inspiration for the religious establishment clause, but now that our “religious establishments” involve more than traditional religion, maybe that bit needs more work.

Maybe we can draw guidance from Adlai Stevenson: My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Most totalitarian societies – oh, who am I kidding, all totalitarian societies – aim for just the opposite.

Make it safe to be unpopular, and you will make society freer. I’m for that.