Subscribe to Posts
Subscribe to CommentsIndividual Entry: Three tales of "freedoms"
« Anybody listening? |
Main
| A Quick 6 Month Summary »
If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr.
No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).If you want to know more about me, click here.
November 06, 2007
Faith : Three tales of "freedoms"
This is not the first post I had intended to make; but current events have intruded on my plans.
When I was in High School, I was one of a group of students that fought our school district for the right to voluntarily get together to pray before school. All we wanted was an established time and place so that any students that wanted to pray together could do so. The district originally said that we would have to meet off of school property as the use of school facilities would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Fortunately, we eventually were able to work out a compromise and the unsupervised "student prayer club" was allowed to meet every morning on school grounds.
The experience has had a significant effect on my views on "freedom of religion". Too often principles like "religious freedom" and "separation of church and state" have been used to remove religion from public discourse; but "freedom of religion" need not be the same thing as "freedom from religion" where we all must be careful to not expose our religious faith to others. A true multi-cultural society is not one in which everyone keeps their own beliefs out of sight lest they offend someone else; but rather one in which everyone is free to express their own faith publicly as long as it does not impinge on other people's ability to practice what they believe.
That line can however get rather hard to draw at times.
Consider cases in Sweden and Canada which have passed strong hate crime law meant to stop people advocating attacks based on the target's race, nationality, religion and sexual identity. Now on principle, I support such laws. No one should be allowed to stir up hatred for groups and be immune from prosecution when those who listen to such rants take violent action. However, in both Sweden and Canada, those laws have been used to prosecute pastors who simply said from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin. The pastors did not advocate hatred (I'll get to those kinds of preachers in a moment), and in one case clearly talked about how God loves all sinners, regardless of what sins they committed. Yet they spent up to 30 months in jail for expressing their opinions.
We must, in a multi-cultural society, find ways to allow people to hold and express their own opinions, even when those opinions are not popular. True freedom allows one person to say "I believe you are wrong" while allowing you to say "I believe I am right" as long as no harm is encouraged. Society should be careful to only step in when such a conversation crosses the line into "I believe you are wrong and someone should do something about it". Freedom of speech is so necessary to a free society that we should declare talk a "hate crime" only when it is clear that criminal actions are being advocated.
Which bring me to the recent 2.9 million dollar court settlement against Westboro Baptist Church. The pastor of this church believes that the death of so many US soldiers in Iraq is a judgment from God on the USA for our acceptance of homosexuality. To express that opinion his church hold protests against homosexuality at the funerals of soldiers, complete with signs that read "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers".
Personally, I am offended by what this church is doing – it is groups like this that tempt me to join some of my friends who have stopped calling themselves "Christians" and instead refer to themselves as "Jesus followers" so as to distance themselves from what the modern Christian church has become. I am offended that they would talk about God hating anyone. I am offended by their willingness to intrude on the grief of people to make their point. I am offended by the hatred they stir up against fellow human beings.
Now some people are saying that this is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of religion in America. I disagree. Neither of those freedoms are intended to be a license to be obnoxious. Furthermore, once you start to say "God hates those people", you are only a small step away from someone thinking that if God doesn't like them, then perhaps it is OK to attack them. In my understanding, while true Christianity does establish a clear moral code for those who choose to be Christians, it never advocates hatred of people. Instead we are encouraged to love all people, regardless of their faults. Supporting groups like Westboro Baptist Church only confuses that message.
Posted by Steven at November 6, 2007 03:07 PM
Comments
I've tried to answer this post several times, but I'll just throw up my hands instead. I really don't know how to answer this.
The actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are incomprehenisble and reprehensible. Christianity is supposed to teach you to love your fellow man, not rejoice in his suffering. Unfortunately I've seen too many instances where a church (an instrument of man) is used improperly in God's name.
Your last point, about 'God hates these people', is exactly what nation-states use in each and every engagement. The crusades were all about the wrong people holding Jerusalem, even though they worshipped the same God. So 'God hates these people' let's kill them. What's more, this kind of thinking continues today: the origins of a lot of our derogatory terms comes from the de-humanization and demonization of the other side. It is a requirement of war to make the other side subhuman so that you can kill without seeming to break any commandments. After all, there is no commandment to not kill animals.
Posted by: janbergs ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://sighsandmusings.stevenanne.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 26, 2007 09:16 AM
You'll get no arguments from me on this.
I've been reading the journal of George Fox, founder of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), and his stance of pacifism among other things. It's good to see that at least some Christian leaders got the right idea.
Posted by: Steven at November 26, 2007 10:14 AM
Ro - what aspect of the post did you want to respond to and couldn't find the words?
Posted by: Steven at November 26, 2007 10:28 AM
Well, the whole notion of well-meaning people interfering in what other reasonable people might do because they have a little authority and because they think their position requires them to.
Sometimes it is little minor things like the 2-page newsletter we put out at the condo. To get it read, it is written up *fun*! But the Condo Board sees this as their answer to the NY Times, so they stogify the words and remove anything that might be construed as offensive - like how much a Condo cost ten years ago. They mean well, but the result is work (putting out a newsletter) that delivers no substance (no news).
The people who push for "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday Trees" are in the same boat. They mean well, but their actions take all the joy out of what the other person is doing. And for what purpose? If I happen to wish someone of another faith a "Merry Christmas", can they not take that in the spirit intended - that they have a happy and festive time however they spend it? Who does my joy in the occassion have to be trammeled by PC-ness?
The district's restriction on your activity, which harms no one and possibly makes life better for you, is also needless. They mean well, but why even go there? It is simply a non-school sponsored activity that some of the students wish to engage in. Period. End of story.
By all means we should not offend each other, but we, as a society, need to also develop a thicker skin and a less cowering attitude toward what the minority *might* think of our actions.
Posted by: janbergs at November 27, 2007 03:12 PM
Thanks Ro – we are certainly in agreement.
I am a strong believer in "freedom of" (whether it is religion, speech, press, sex, etc.).
I am a skeptic when it comes to "freedom from" – the right not to be exposed to things you don't want.
While I suspect there is a need for some kind of right to "freedom from" (many would want the right to walk down the street with their kids and not have them exposed to people engaged in sexual intercourse in public), I have never found a way to draw the line on the slippery slope that does not lead to a society devoid of meaning.
BTW - I have blogged before on this subject:
(http://sighsandmusings.stevenanne.net/archives/2005/05/the_right_to_co_1.html)
Posted by: Steven at November 27, 2007 03:27 PM
