In which our regular writers toss around
subjects a little more volatile than usual.
What
constitutes “hate speech”? A fairly standard definition goes something like this: “Speech that attacks a person or group
on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race,
disability, or sexual orientation.”
Tom: Now personally I’d consider even that
arguable, not least because the word “attacks” is nebulous, which leaves hate
speech to be defined by the party claiming injury (a bad idea), not to mention
it takes for granted that “sexual orientation” is a valid concept even though
science has not yet demonstrated it is anything more than a personal preference.
You Need Jesus
In any
case, the public debate over that question is about to become even more muddled.
Kent State University is giving serious consideration to whether the words “You need Jesus” qualify as hate speech.
How
about them apples, Immanuel Can?
Immanuel
Can: Wow. So “You need Jesus” is hate speech now? I
suppose we can trust that “You need mouthwash” is still just information ...
Tom:
For today, anyway. This is where amorphous language
leads. Presumably anything that suggests — however deferentially —
that you are anything less than absolutely perfect just the way you are is
construed by some to constitute an “attack”.
Now the article does draw a distinction between
things like “Death to Israel” and the gentle suggestion that a relationship
with God might be a necessity for everyone. The former drew condemnation from
campus leaders, students and faculty when shouted by an associate professor at
Kent State a few years ago, so there’s a fair degree of unanimity about calling
it “hateful”. The latter is only being “mulled over” at this stage. But as one
critic put it, “Nobody wants to be told ‘You’re going to hell.’ ”
Politics and Reality
IC: Nobody wants to
be told “You have cancer” or “You need surgery” either … but the
alternative is sickness and death.
In
light of what’s at stake in the case of speaking of the Lord, I wonder if
deliberately holding back the gospel ought to be considered “hate
[non-]speech”. After all, it amounts to saying, “Go to hell”. I’d say
that’s pretty hateful, wouldn’t you?
Tom: Absolutely. But
we’re rapidly moving to a place in Western societies where we have assumed to
ourselves the “right” not to hear anything we don’t want to. And that’s
terribly unhealthy.
IC: Yes. Our politics have become more precious to us than our very
grasp on reality. Facts are out, and feelings are in. Truth is out, and
delusions are sacred.
Tom: This discussion comes on the heels of concern about maintaining
“safe spaces” for students, which in this instance could end up meaning “safe
from hearing about the only Person who can ever make you truly safe”. Not too ironic.
Another Perspective
But the president of the Catholic Student
Association has urged Kent decision-makers to consider that “They share this
with you because they believe it is in your best interest. I feel few students
stop to consider this perspective.” I think he’s probably right
about that.
IC: Well, yes. Consider it this way: suppose you don’t believe in heaven
or hell, and perhaps you don’t even believe in the claim that God exists. Let’s
accept that, for the sake of argument. Fine.
But what would you expect of someone who
genuinely DID believe these things? What would you think that such a person
ought to do in respect to you? After all, what sort of a person would say to
you, “I genuinely believe you’re in danger of hell, but I’m not going to tell
you”? Does that sound like a “good” person, even to a rank atheist?
Tom: No. Not at all. Not even if they are respectfully PC-kow-towing to
your wholly-manufactured not-quite-legally-established right to not hear
anything that makes you think for more than five seconds, and certainly
not anything that might cause you to agonize for a moment over the condition of
your soul.
IC: I
guess they’ve defined “hurt” as referring to feelings, not to the actual doing
of harm.
An Honest Answer
Tom: Thing is, every single person I respect and love today has hurt me
at one time or another, and the ones I respect and love the most have hurt me
the most, because they loved me and were willing to risk my friendship to tell
me things I needed to hear. “An honest answer is like a kiss on the lips,” says the writer of Proverbs. There is truly almost nothing better, and
certainly nothing more necessary in this life, than honesty with ourselves and
honesty from others. People that dignify us by telling us the truth when we
have strayed off the path are the best friends we will ever have.
So, yeah, let’s legislate against that.
That couldn’t possibly have any negative effects.
IC: And yet, historically, when the mainline churches gave up preaching
the gospel, and began catering to hurt liberal-humanist feelings and selling
the same thin universalist gruel the secular liberals were peddling, the people
to whom they most wanted to appeal, the general public, dumped them in droves.
How Much Do You Have to Hate Somebody?
They don’t get it. Ironically, I remember
coming across a relevant quotation from avowed atheist Penn Jillette. He said:
“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward — and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me alone and keep your religion to yourself — how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Good point, Penn. One of your few, maybe;
but still, a good one. Now that’s hatred — not well-intended speech that
merely temporarily hurts feelings, but a malevolent silence that actually
resigns souls to hell.
If the Militant Elements Win
Tom: I agree. How can you not agree? So let’s suppose the more militant
progressive elements at Kent State U win out and manage to get themselves a ban
on phrases like “You need Jesus”, or “No man comes to the Father but by me” or
any number of similar truths. What should the righteous do? What’s the
appropriate Christian response?
IC: I think the apostles gave it to us:
“We must obey God rather than men”. Or maybe we should just go back to what the Lord himself said: “All
authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.
Go, therefore ...”
Kent State can’t countermand a direct
divine order. It just doesn’t have that kind of authority. Nobody does.
No comments :
Post a comment