Sunday, January 18, 2015

Freedom of Speech for Religious Conservatives

Freedom of speech does not mean, and never has meant, the license to say whatever comes into one's head. The Founders never meant to give a free rein to obscenity and blasphemy. The principle of freedom of speech  was meant to protect those who ventured to offer a political opinion which differed from that of the ruling party. It meant that citizens could offer constructive criticism of the government. The idea that freedom means license leads to chaos and abuse. I think that a free people should be above mocking the religion of others, for it attacks the dignity of those who wish to have faith. A freedom that deteriorates into licentiousness is not freedom but a new form of slavery, for all human dignity is destroyed. Only a people of noble character are able to govern themselves, otherwise they set themselves up for tyranny. From Catholic Vote:
If we defend Charlie Hebdo for the baby Jesus in a toilet, can’t we defend pro-lifers promoting respect for real babies? Can sidewalk counselors be Charlie Hebdo?

Brendan Eich, a brilliant web entrepreneur, resigned under pressure as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of the Firefox web browser, because in 2008 he had he donated $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, in which California voters defended the way every major religion and most of humanity defines marriage.

Charlie Hebdo magazine featured Pope Benedict elevating a condom instead of the Eucharist, and, later, Pope Benedict resigning to be with his gay swiss guard lover. They feature Pope Francis dressed like an erotic dancer in Rio, “soliciting the clients.”

Can Brendan Eich get as much respect as Charlie Hebdo? Can we defend his right to free speech, too? (Read more.)
Share

2 comments:

Robert Scales said...

Freedom of speech to me means sometimes what others say may be offensive but if I want the right to say whatever I want, for example, call Obama/Bush an idiot or draw an offensive political cartoon, then I have to give that same right to others. An artist that puts a crucifix in urine will have to answer to the Almighty. Should man take on the role of Righteous Judge? “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…(Romans 3:23). I think that our Fore Fathers had enough confidence in their God and their religion that he and it could stand up against any criticism no matter how offensive, I find flag burning offensive, but protest, most times very offensive to the crown, was what this country was founded on. Pluralism is only a problem if we make it one. We can only be offended if we allow ourselves to be. Absolutism is its own form of tyranny. Was Luther's posting of his dissents with the Roman Catholic Church terrorism? I'll bet that some in the papacy thought yes. It has been told that the Colonist tarred and feathered, tortured many a tax collector or government official. Terrorism? It is debated as to who fired the first shot in the Revolutionary War. One man’s violence or terrorism is another man’s revolutionary act. I do prefer non-violence but it has its place. Look at the Old Testament. God and Israel was quite violent and ruthless against its “enemies.” (Please forgive any grammar errors.)

elena maria vidal said...

If men were not to judge then there would be no laws about perjury or slander. Ultimately, there would be no law and order. There are still laws in America which pertain to decency. We do not live in a compete free-for-all, thank goodness.