Limitations on theFreedom of Speech and Religion
by Bob Clasen
As a result of religious wars between Catholics and various sects of Protestants over hundreds of years, in the west the doctrine of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state arose and became ascendant in the United States. The concept of freedom of religion is one of our most fundamental tenets, which we hold as a sacred legacy from our forefathers, enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is closely connected with the belief in freedom of speech.
But what of a man who preaches violence and intolerance against all other beliefs?
What if there was a religion that preached religious war to the death as part of its core belief system?
How do we resolve this inherent contradiction between the principle of freedom and tolerance and people who believe in violence and intolerance?
It seems to me that a free and civilized society can only grant rights and freedom of speech and religion to those who respect these rights and freedoms themselves. A man who lives by violence cannot complain if he dies by violence. A man who believes in achieving his personal good by means of force and crime can expect no protection from the state sworn to protect innocent citizens from crime.
For the same reason, a person who rejects freedom of speech for others cannot expect protection from a state sworn to protect freedom of speech. A religion that encourages holy way, murder of infidels can not expect to find as an ally a government that is sworn to protect and guarantee freedom of speech and religion. To have its own rights protected, a religion must first respect the rights of others. A man who does not believe in peace cannot complain if he lives as a fugitive from the law. A man who rejects the idea of free speech, cannot complain if the state refuses to afford him a platform to proclaim his rejection of the rights of others.
To argue otherwise would be the same as arguing (as some pacifists seem to) that it is wrong to use violence even to protect yourself from attack by a criminal.
Do not grant rights to others that they do not respect or acknowledge as being your rights as well.
As a result of religious wars between Catholics and various sects of Protestants over hundreds of years, in the west the doctrine of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state arose and became ascendant in the United States. The concept of freedom of religion is one of our most fundamental tenets, which we hold as a sacred legacy from our forefathers, enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is closely connected with the belief in freedom of speech.
But what of a man who preaches violence and intolerance against all other beliefs?
What if there was a religion that preached religious war to the death as part of its core belief system?
How do we resolve this inherent contradiction between the principle of freedom and tolerance and people who believe in violence and intolerance?
It seems to me that a free and civilized society can only grant rights and freedom of speech and religion to those who respect these rights and freedoms themselves. A man who lives by violence cannot complain if he dies by violence. A man who believes in achieving his personal good by means of force and crime can expect no protection from the state sworn to protect innocent citizens from crime.
For the same reason, a person who rejects freedom of speech for others cannot expect protection from a state sworn to protect freedom of speech. A religion that encourages holy way, murder of infidels can not expect to find as an ally a government that is sworn to protect and guarantee freedom of speech and religion. To have its own rights protected, a religion must first respect the rights of others. A man who does not believe in peace cannot complain if he lives as a fugitive from the law. A man who rejects the idea of free speech, cannot complain if the state refuses to afford him a platform to proclaim his rejection of the rights of others.
To argue otherwise would be the same as arguing (as some pacifists seem to) that it is wrong to use violence even to protect yourself from attack by a criminal.
Do not grant rights to others that they do not respect or acknowledge as being your rights as well.
Comments
It seems obvious that Hezbolla's stake in Israel seems to be fighting a proxy war for Iran. It also seems as though the Shia are on the acendancy in the Muslim world, much to the distress, I am sure to Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
I think it is obvious that we have to check the growth of fundementalist thinking and power, however, cowboy politics I think has totally backfired. Bush played into the hands of Iran by knocking off the only secular government with real power in the region.