#208…science, RELIGION, etc.: “Free Speech (2)”





A good idea, right?


Not bad when all good people are on the same side.


For more use the DOOR.




   But are they?

   That is, do good people always agree about what’s bad?


   For example, let’s consider the issues (cited in the Note #1) of ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation. Does everyone have to be open to and uncritical–at least out loud–of any physical differences, behavioral choices, or attitudinal variances that are observed or allowed in public? Or, to what extent can a person say (we’re not talking about thinking here) if he prefers one “expression” to another–without hurting, or hating, those who are not preferred?

   Let’s get more specific. In our last post Paulson concludes his article with an interesting question, “What if an NFL player [referring to Don Jones of the Miami Dolphins] had been a bit more circumspect, tweeting (a) ‘Congrats to Michael Sam, but the idea of two men in a romantic relationship offends my deepest religious beliefs’ instead of (b) the two words ‘OMG’ and ‘horrible’ that landed him in big trouble? Would the Dolphins, asked Paulson, have suspended him for sharing his faith? [Probably, we say.] Or was ‘OMG’ just not eloquent enough?”

   In this ugly case of political correctness one delicate issue, sexual orientation, would probably trump another, religion. Notice that “good guys” could be on both sides with “tweetable armies” that could declare war on each other.

   Consider the direction that “hate crime” is now moving toward, and then the following hypothetical public statement [on the Internet, say] that “X” declares:

“While many religions have good points that encourage some people to believe in them, they are otherwise false, because accepting the Bible message that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that personally trusting in Him is the only successful way to enter Heaven.”

   I’ll predict that such a statement will soon be out-of-bounds–and X could be banished from the Internet² by those who control its access. Why? It will be not only politically incorrect but hateful to publicly declare that one religion (especially Christianity) is superior to another.


    ¹ Hate crime — a usually violent, prejudice motivated crime that occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group. Examples of include, but are not limited to: ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, or sexual orientation.

   ² At least banned or cut off from popular means of access.

Author: John Knapp