Freedom of Speech and Religion
Posted by Amanda on February 9th, 2006 . Filed under: Christianity, Politics, Religion .When I saw the recent cover of Rolling Stone Magazine, I was mortified. I felt an instant revulsion towards Kanye West for trivializing the crucifixion and emulating Jesus Christ. So the question arises, how patriotic am I if ignore the first amendment right for freedom of speech? In theory, Kanye should be able to do or say whatever he wants because here in America we are to be tolerant of everyone.
But how tolerant is Kanye being of Christianity?
A friend of mine pointed out the similiarities between Kanye’s cover and the recent controversy surrounding the Danish cartoons of Mohammad. Both involve the overlap of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In theory, everyone has the right to worship who or what they want to. In practice this obviously isn’t the case. As opposed as I am to the Muslim religion, I sympathize with them. Whatever happened to good old fashioned respect? When did it become too much to ask of people to respect others for their beliefs, opinions, and practices?
Both Kanye and the Danish newspapers have slapped two world religions in the face. And by doing so, they have alienated millions of people around the world. Is this what we call tolerance? What are we tolerant of? Disrespect? Intolerance?
If I take a step back, I see validity in both arguments. But as Normblog suggests, it is possible for two sides to be equally sincere and seemingly right while only one side is truly right. His example about the Nazis and the Jews is right on target. Those who rally together and cry “Freedom of speech!” need to be aware of how intolerant their views may be. They often stand up and cry “Intolerance!” when they are criticized, but what is it they want us to be tolerant of? Their own intolerance!
Why should we be tolerant of intolerance? I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I’m tired of being told I have to be tolerant of the athiests, the liberals, the muslims, the jehovah’s witnesses, and everyone else while no one wants to be tolerant of me, the Christian! And because I have experienced this over and over again, I can very well empathize with the Muslims on this issue. They should not have to be tolerant of someone who is not tolerant of them.
See Randy Thomas’ blog for a fabulous article, that includes the following:
I am no fan of Muhammad. He was a false prophet. I am a great big humongous fan of free speech. It affords me the right to say Muhammad was a false prophet.
What is the truth? I am a pseudo-intellectual at best but I don’t think this is ultimately about Muhammad or the freedom of speech. Like warriors of old lining up on a battlefield taunting their adversaries, this is about a world getting ready for a world war on one level. On another level this is about the war over souls, a spiritual battle.
…
Continuing on this personal level, reprinting them for the sake of Freedom of Speech could be a stumbling block for a Muslim person finding freedom in Christ. If a Muslim visits this blog they are going to be upset about my statements concerning Muhammad and possibly my support in shutting down the murder of people they do not see as innocent. At least they won’t have to argue with me about those cartoons. They will challenge me on who the True Prophet is and the concepts of liberty for people and souls. That is fine and we can attempt to have that discussion. The cartoons are already reprinted everywhere and will do nothing but drive people away.
I wish that my own first instinct had been so gracious.
February 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Thanks, Mandi, for your interesting article.
It seems to me that it is precisely when a freedom or a right is exercised in a way that makes us uncomfortable or angry that we discover how much we believe in it.
It is always easy to be tolerant when we agree with the right being tested. All of us love stories about the wonder of newborn babies, but almost none enjoy seeing the icons of our religions trashed.
Your implicit argument that we should not tolerate intolerance is a sticky wicket indeed. Who gets to decide what the criteria for “tolerant”? You? Me?
And anyhow, their is a critical difference between advocating for an idea and overt acts toward accomplishing it. In law, before a person may be charged with criminal conspiracy, they must make an overt act to accomplish the illegal end they have discussed. Free speech covers spoken or written words, but it does not apply to actions.
We may well take issue with the morons who intentionally insult a major medieval system of belief (most all religions, in my mind), but we should never get in the business of deciding what is, or is not, free speech.
Can you imagine how quickly authority would seize the opportunity to define free speech in a way that stifled it? Of course you can. I’ve found that free speech is like a shining light, and when it illuminates the corruption of the powerful, they scramble like the bugs you see skittling off when you turn over a rock.
We may well deplore stupidity in the press and its consequences. However, from where I sit, consequences are the price we pay for any freedom. And if you aren’t willing to pay the price, you don’t deserve freedom.
Thanks again for your article.
Will Walker
griffon007@gmail.com
February 9th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
My intent was not to suggest that free speech be defined or ruled over. My post is a call–a challenge, if you will–for people to be wise about what they do or say. In essence, I’m asking you to not be hypocritical by asking me to do something you won’t.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
the word “tolerance” seems to have more than just one meaning. Is tolerance of a belief or in this case, a whole nation, just the ability to ignore them and let them do their thing, or is tolerance necessarily agreeing with their views? i think we’ve lost the true meaning of tolerance over time… Britain, for example, has a complete tolerence policy. There were Muslim extremists protesting earlier this week, holding up signs for an islamic theocracy, etc. One was ever wearing one of the belts that the suicide bombers wear. Of course the newspapers put his pic up on the front page, and he later got arrested for breaking parol, but i digress; the gov’t did nothing to these protestors, no matter how extreme the measures they called for were. although the gov’t did arrest those people handing out copies of the comic strip as a counter-protest. “inflammatory” actions, as they called them. and they were; but that is where the whole level of tolerence issue comes in. what is the line between tolerance and danger? between just an offense or a threat to national security? definitely an ambiguous argument, i’m going to be giving it quite a bit of thought. Nice post btw =)
February 10th, 2006 at 5:44 am
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both items in the US Constitution which are very often mis-interpreted. You need to understand the history behind the formation of the US and the reason for writing the constitution.
The reigning monarch in England controlled the church. King Henry VIII, for instance, had the church change its doctrine in order to allow him to divorce his wives. The government’s control over the church was absolute, to the point where when reformists charged the leadership to repent from the areas they strayed from biblical doctrine, they were persecuted for their “treason.”
When the new world was settled, a lot of the population consisted of people who wanted to practice biblical Christianity-not the resemblance of Christianity that they had left in England-freely and without fear. The Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State were created to allow people to practice their religion without fear of persecution.
Freedom of Speech follows the same lines, where the early leaders of our nation wanted to be sure of the safety of the individual. While I was in high school, there were lots of kids whose language was laced with profanity. Their excuse? Freedom of Speech. However, they were abusing this right. The Freedom of Speech our Founding Fathers envisioned was a freedom from political or religious persecution for the individual who felt the need to hold the government/church accountable.
These freedoms are very vital-I thank God that I live in a country where its leaders are able to be held accountable by the population. (I don’t know how well we, as a people, are holding our leaders accountable, but the power is there if we choose to use it.) Also, as far as the comic strip that was referred to, I don’t know of anything about Freedom of Speech outside the US.
Thanks for letting me post my thoughts. I know I didn’t address the issues such as tolerance, or whether or not the cover offended me, but I feel that this is long enough for now.