The Truth
While President Trump continues to get the blame for being both Anti Semitic and also not Anti Semitic in the wake of the Pittsburgh shootings, I believe it has never been as important to talk openly, freely and honestly.
With the same rights that both Jewish and Islamic people have to believe that Christ isn't the son of God, I believe I have the same right as a Christian to doubt the credentials of Mohammed as a prophet.
I believe that fundamentally, that done without hatred, we can be free to disagree, to rip through each others scriptures and point out inaccuracies and contradictions in the same way we might agree to disagree with Jehovahs witnesses, or Mormons, Scientologists or even Atheists.
Each one of us, is free to believe what we want to believe. But each one of us, as devout followers of our religion, will believe that we have the exclusive truth. We want our friends to be saved and enjoy the salvation that comes from what we consider the true path. We certainly don't have to agree with one another, but that shouldn't mean we shouldn't be free and open to discuss uncomfortable passages in scripture and discuss what that means.
Unfortunately the ECHR seems to believe that this type of discussion will cause offence and must be stopped. While the Austrian woman who recently lost her case appears to be guilty of using inflammatory words, I think we must be careful about the regulation of words. These sort of "blasphemy" laws can be used by sects and other dangerous ideological platforms to bring people away from the truth completely unchallenged.
In my opinion however, any platform that is strong and stable enough, should be able to withstand and rebuff criticism instead of crying about it. If you have to engineer laws to prevent people from criticising, to prevent people from turning away, to mask other options, then do you really have the truth? The truth is simple and gentle and stands on its own merits. The truth doesn't need protection.
With the same rights that both Jewish and Islamic people have to believe that Christ isn't the son of God, I believe I have the same right as a Christian to doubt the credentials of Mohammed as a prophet.
I believe that fundamentally, that done without hatred, we can be free to disagree, to rip through each others scriptures and point out inaccuracies and contradictions in the same way we might agree to disagree with Jehovahs witnesses, or Mormons, Scientologists or even Atheists.
Each one of us, is free to believe what we want to believe. But each one of us, as devout followers of our religion, will believe that we have the exclusive truth. We want our friends to be saved and enjoy the salvation that comes from what we consider the true path. We certainly don't have to agree with one another, but that shouldn't mean we shouldn't be free and open to discuss uncomfortable passages in scripture and discuss what that means.
Unfortunately the ECHR seems to believe that this type of discussion will cause offence and must be stopped. While the Austrian woman who recently lost her case appears to be guilty of using inflammatory words, I think we must be careful about the regulation of words. These sort of "blasphemy" laws can be used by sects and other dangerous ideological platforms to bring people away from the truth completely unchallenged.
In my opinion however, any platform that is strong and stable enough, should be able to withstand and rebuff criticism instead of crying about it. If you have to engineer laws to prevent people from criticising, to prevent people from turning away, to mask other options, then do you really have the truth? The truth is simple and gentle and stands on its own merits. The truth doesn't need protection.
Comments