Should we moderate free speech with respect for religious opinion and belief?
Edit: "we" in the sentence above refers to society, not SciForums or the moderators at SF. "Moderate" in this context has nothing to do with the word "moderator." The definition I'm using is "to tone down/make less intense."
I've participated on this and other internet forums where those that criticize and even ridicule religious belief are themselves criticized for their words. Somehow, religious thought and belief gets a pass from criticism in a politically correct fashion that states it is impolite or improper to criticize the beliefs of others.
I'm not suggesting that religious people should be disrespected. Private beliefs should have respect. But when people make a public spectacle of their beliefs, criticism is warranted, particularly when these beliefs affect others. At this point, criticism and ridicule of the person should be expected. If, say, my neighbor persists in "witnessing" to me, should I refrain from offering my own opinion about his beliefs? If religious superstition is used to decide public policy, should not this superstition be challenged with criticism even ridicule? If an openly religious elected official has admitted to believing in superstitions regarding the Second Coming and other apocalyptic mumbo jumbo, shouldn't his dedication to the future of our nation be questioned? Wouldn't his decision to invade a nation governed by a theocracy that differed from his own be questionable?
It's been suggested by the politically correct that the Muslim religion cannot be blamed for 9/11, the London subway bombings, or the Madrid bombings. Yet, in each of these cases, the perpetrators were Muslim and committed the acts for their religious beliefs. We are constantly reminded by the politically correct that these Muslims represent a few fundamentalist-extremists, yet when faced with criticism and ridicule, a very large number of Muslims emerge as "extremists" in their overreaction to a few benign cartoons. Violence erupted throughout Europe and the Muslim world and a bounty was offered by the "pious" leaders of various Islamic cults for the cartoonists and editor's death.
In the United States, where religious fundamentalism presents itself with usually less violent but still kooky manner, nuts like Pat Robertson have a following of millions of viewers of his 700 Club, a pseudo-news show that gives him the pre-paid opportunity to share his opinions about how his god is angry at the citizens of a city and therefore directs a hurricane to them.
By now, many of the believers that have read this far have decided that I'm wrong. I hope there are some believers that agree with me, because criticism, even ridicule, of religion is essential for freedom of religion. I'm sure, however, that there are many who find my statements just more callous remarks from a godless heathen and that I'm utterly wrong in calling for ridicule and criticism of religious beliefs.
But I wonder if those same people would be willing to apply the same logic to other human institutions? Could we say, for instance, that freedom of speech should be moderated with respect for science? Or what about political ideology? Would we expect to simply respect science and not question the work of scientists? Not be willing to ridicule bad science? Should there be no cartoons of scientific themes? Should political cartoons be banned from the editorial pages of newspapers? Should editorial comments be censored to restrict criticism of a politician's agenda and ideology? Should we not be free to question, criticize and ridicule politics and science if warranted?
Islamic leaders incite violent opposition to criticism and ridicule whenever it becomes public. Public offers of reward for the death of Salmon Rushdie years ago with his publication of Satanic Verses were made in Great Britain. The British government did nothing that I'm aware of to charge them with incitement to murder. Mainstream publications in the United States refused to publish the very benign cartoons of Muhammad. Is the Muslim god that weak that he can't take a joke? Or is the Islamic hierarchy simply afraid that criticism will open eyes and turn people away from their cult. It is, after all, still an offense punishable by death to convert from Islam to Christianity in many Muslim countries as is apostasy.
Edit: "we" in the sentence above refers to society, not SciForums or the moderators at SF. "Moderate" in this context has nothing to do with the word "moderator." The definition I'm using is "to tone down/make less intense."
I've participated on this and other internet forums where those that criticize and even ridicule religious belief are themselves criticized for their words. Somehow, religious thought and belief gets a pass from criticism in a politically correct fashion that states it is impolite or improper to criticize the beliefs of others.
I'm not suggesting that religious people should be disrespected. Private beliefs should have respect. But when people make a public spectacle of their beliefs, criticism is warranted, particularly when these beliefs affect others. At this point, criticism and ridicule of the person should be expected. If, say, my neighbor persists in "witnessing" to me, should I refrain from offering my own opinion about his beliefs? If religious superstition is used to decide public policy, should not this superstition be challenged with criticism even ridicule? If an openly religious elected official has admitted to believing in superstitions regarding the Second Coming and other apocalyptic mumbo jumbo, shouldn't his dedication to the future of our nation be questioned? Wouldn't his decision to invade a nation governed by a theocracy that differed from his own be questionable?
It's been suggested by the politically correct that the Muslim religion cannot be blamed for 9/11, the London subway bombings, or the Madrid bombings. Yet, in each of these cases, the perpetrators were Muslim and committed the acts for their religious beliefs. We are constantly reminded by the politically correct that these Muslims represent a few fundamentalist-extremists, yet when faced with criticism and ridicule, a very large number of Muslims emerge as "extremists" in their overreaction to a few benign cartoons. Violence erupted throughout Europe and the Muslim world and a bounty was offered by the "pious" leaders of various Islamic cults for the cartoonists and editor's death.
In the United States, where religious fundamentalism presents itself with usually less violent but still kooky manner, nuts like Pat Robertson have a following of millions of viewers of his 700 Club, a pseudo-news show that gives him the pre-paid opportunity to share his opinions about how his god is angry at the citizens of a city and therefore directs a hurricane to them.
By now, many of the believers that have read this far have decided that I'm wrong. I hope there are some believers that agree with me, because criticism, even ridicule, of religion is essential for freedom of religion. I'm sure, however, that there are many who find my statements just more callous remarks from a godless heathen and that I'm utterly wrong in calling for ridicule and criticism of religious beliefs.
But I wonder if those same people would be willing to apply the same logic to other human institutions? Could we say, for instance, that freedom of speech should be moderated with respect for science? Or what about political ideology? Would we expect to simply respect science and not question the work of scientists? Not be willing to ridicule bad science? Should there be no cartoons of scientific themes? Should political cartoons be banned from the editorial pages of newspapers? Should editorial comments be censored to restrict criticism of a politician's agenda and ideology? Should we not be free to question, criticize and ridicule politics and science if warranted?
Islamic leaders incite violent opposition to criticism and ridicule whenever it becomes public. Public offers of reward for the death of Salmon Rushdie years ago with his publication of Satanic Verses were made in Great Britain. The British government did nothing that I'm aware of to charge them with incitement to murder. Mainstream publications in the United States refused to publish the very benign cartoons of Muhammad. Is the Muslim god that weak that he can't take a joke? Or is the Islamic hierarchy simply afraid that criticism will open eyes and turn people away from their cult. It is, after all, still an offense punishable by death to convert from Islam to Christianity in many Muslim countries as is apostasy.
Last edited:
