I tire of the radical gibberish spewing from religious zealots calling for laws to restrict speech that questions or is critical of any faith. Such a law would have prohibited the cartoons that recently spurred Muslims around the globe to riot and destroy and murder like spoiled and selfish children who were never taught how to behave. The global sedition now calling for limiting the rights of others in order to protect religions from critical speech is troubling at best.
One can not deny that freedom of speech should trump any law that strives to prohibit discourse. I do not believe that spewing racial hatred should be more illegal than the dissemination of talk aimed at questioning the validity or content of any religion. It matters not what might offend someone: there is no freedom from offense or criticism, but there is freedom of speech. Speaking one’s mind is an inherent, absolute and unquestionable right of all humans, and its importance is paramount to all attempts to limit its practice.
Allow me to cause offense now by saying that I feel so strongly on this that even hate speech and threats should be protected. You see, what I say is a product of what I think, so any desire to control one is aimed at controlling the other. If I threaten someone and you believe it to be cause for concern, investigate and monitor me to ensure the safety of the person I threatened, but make no attempt to stop me from speaking what I will. If I incite religious tirades by questioning the validity of their laughable gods and hysterically inadequate books, it is the fault of the rioters for having so little self-control that they can not withstand critical thinking or offensive talk without resorting to violence. The point is this: no one ever has a right to squelch or inhibit my speech in any way whatsoever.
Specific to the question of religion, let’s ask the Nazi Pope what he thinks:
In the current international context, the Catholic Church remains convinced that to encourage peace and understanding between peoples and individuals it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected, and that the faithful not be subjected to provocations injuring their outlook and religious feelings.
This is a call to legislate respect for religion, essentially using the state to force me to abandon any questioning or critical thought I might have about any religion. Therein rests the most abhorrent subjugation of free thought ever conceived: do not question faith, and pass laws prohibiting such questioning. This is the call of the venerable and eternal victim, played disgustingly by zealots who admit indirectly their beliefs are unable to withstand critical thought. Believers should not be allowed to think for themselves lest they cause the downfall of theocratic control over government. The church is unable to maintain control of the state if the people are allowed to examine belief and doubt its validity. Such questioning threatens the fountain of wealth that religious leaders are insured so long as their followers remain under strict plutocratic control.
What so blatantly reveals itself in these diatribes and calls for legal ramifications for questioning them is that they are unable to survive review by free thinkers. Essentially, their god occupies a position so weak that it is unable to withstand critical thinking from its own followers. This is a god of ignorance. Its omnipotence is contingent on blind faith from those who wish to be saved. Because secular thought has eroded their strength, utilizing the power of the state against non-believers is the only option left to protect its monopoly on the ignorant and inept. The church would have no power were its followers to stop momentarily and ask questions of the faith in which they place their blind and absolute obedience. This is weakness.
The church knows it is unable to protect its income if it can not stop the faithful from hearing and seeing thoughts contrary to the shared intellect it forces upon them. Need for economic, political and personal control over the planet drives them to assume wrongly that the protection of their empire somehow trumps the free speech of a human being. Think about it for a minute.
Religion is learned. It is not inherent to any biology. It deserves no more legal protection than communism, socialism, monarchies, Satanism, capitalism, despotism, atheism, secularism, democracy, or any other form of thought representing a belief system. Offense of the most horrific degree is the only response thinking people can have to the idea that the state would be used to force you to respect them. If you’re a Christian, why don’t we use the law to force you to respect Satanism? It would be illegal for your preachers to speak against that belief. Is that acceptable? To Muslims, the law will now be used to force you to respect those who believe your religion is untrue. You can no longer say anything that would question their belief that Islam is a fake religion. Do you find that an acceptable use of state force?
I could go on, of course, but you surely get the point by now. Speaking critically of religion is in no way equivalent or comparable to saying something about race, gender, sexual orientation, eye color, or any manner of trait that is not a product of environment or society. Baptists question the Catholics, Pentecostals question the Jews, Muslims question the Christians, and the list goes on. What you are proposing is that we make all of that speech illegal. The people’s governments are to legislate in such a way so as to criminalize your right to question those who believe differently than you. I see a devastating flaw in your request.
No religious protection should be afforded by law other than the right of the individual to practice according to his or her own beliefs. Many would like to think otherwise, but that is just a belief and one that doesn’t stand up to critical review. You want to stop me from saying what I just said. You want to stop your agnostic neighbor from saying your god is no more likely than the Egyptian gods of ancient days. You wish to subdue the dissent among the people through forceful exercise of state powers. For Americans at least, I certainly thought the U.S. Constitution protected us from such things. Perhaps I misread the document, written in English, and impressed upon the world for more than 200 years as the best example of a free people as could be found on our planet.
People should not bow to theocratic thugs. Riot if you wish but understand that your weak mind does not fully accept by faith that in which you claim to believe. Take human life should your god ask you to do so while remaining aware that you kill to protect ignorance. We must not cave to religious insecurity by outlawing free thought and speech that questions. In a free marketplace of ideas, religion’s inability to compete fails to warrant intervention by the state in response to the terrorism, rioting, murder, and general mayhem that results from weak minds facing criticism of their faith.
Related to this is the recent conviction of David Irving for denying that the Holocaust took place. I disagree with the law under which he was convicted and believe he should be freed. His practice of free speech should not land him in jail. I care not who it offends or what wrongfully applied sensibilities under which he was convicted. His saying that Nazi genocide of Jews did not happen can not refute history or change the facts, vile and revisionist though it may be. To outlaw contrary thought, even when it disputes historical fact, tramples upon the very idea of free speech and rapidly approaches attempted thought policing.