CBS Evening News airs a segment they call "Free Speech" in which someone makes comments on a current event or issue. A few nights ago the segment was given by Brian Rohrbough, a father of one of the young victims of the Columbine massacre. Mr. Rohrbough made some startling statements. He attributed the killings in schools over the last week or so to the godlessness of America. He said, "This country is in a moral free-fall. For over two generations, the public school system has taught in a moral vacuum, expelling God from the school and from the government, replacing Him with evolution, where the strong kill the weak, without moral consequences and life has no inherent value."
There is a furor, as one might anticipate, over Mr. Rohrbough's statements. Blaming the murders of school children on America's removal of God in school has people up in arms. More to the point, people aren't merely disagreeing -- they're angry at CBS. "The news organization should never have allowed such a thing to be broadcast. I'm never watching CBS again!!"
Christians are too often long on rhetoric and short on reason, but they're not alone. It appears that a large number of outspoken Americans believe that it's acceptable for people to make public comments with which they agree, but not acceptable to release those with which they disagree. The Christian public is known for this odd approach, but the non-Christian public is equally guilty. Woefully few responses say, "I disagree with him, but he has the right to speak." Instead we see primarily either, "I agree with him, so good for you for putting him on" or "I disagree with him, so shame on you for putting him on."
We Christians should learn from this duplicity. While non-Christians clamor for "free speech" yet complain when they don't like the speech they hear, we are equally upset by people who say things in public against what we believe. We need to make up our minds. Do we want the freedom to say what we believe? Then we need to allow the freedom of others to do the same and deal with it rather than trying to suppress it. They want it both ways. We can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
4 comments:
I agree with free speech as I understand it, only what constitutes free speech? I know they say pornography is free speech, or disgusting crucifixes in jars of urine on display in our county museums are free speech. So what are the limits of free speech? I thought free speech was the right to share your opinions and views in a respectful manner, without violating your neighbor.
I would love to hear other opinions and even what our Constitution and Bill of Rights has to say on this issue.
Blessings, Julianne
"I thought free speech was the right to share your opinions and views in a respectful manner, without violating your neighbor."
I basically agree, but find it nearly impossible to figure out what that means in practice. What is "a respectful manner"? What is "violating your neighbor"? I think we can agree that a crucifix in urine isn't respectful and is a violation, but what about me telling my neighbor, "You're in sin"? My neighbor will likely see that as a violation and disrespectful. And we Christians tend to have just as much difficulty with respectful communication with those with whom we disagree as the rest do with us.
These are always difficult lines for me to draw. I'll be interested with anyone else's view, too.
Getting all parties to agree on what is respectful and what is not is simply impossible. The same folks who are "outraged" over this airing of one person's view on CBS are in all likelihood in favor of any and all verbal attacks on conservatives on any network.
For me, being respectful generally means that when we use our "free speech," that we do so in a way that we would also like to be treated in terms of our own views - and the things we hold dear. Additionally, "free speech" shouldn't be designed for "shock value", or to intimidate, or ridicule - but instead the message should be shared, with the actual facts that are pertinent to the situation (i.e. no slander, libel, etc). Of course, one side is all about shock value, intimidation and distortion of truth - so agreement to the above will never occur.
And I agree that some Christians (including televeision personalities) are guilty of a double standard here as well. It's really a shame.
I have to agree with Stan's concern, that to rigidly define the terms of free speech by using the grid of "offending people" as the filter is to open the door to all kinds of censorship.
If we wish to keep the door open to penetrate the hearts of the lost and wicked with the "offense of the gospel", we're going to have to endure some of the wicked things that come out of their minds and mouths.
Political correctness is a highly dangerous thing, and is only a polite way of introducing fascist ideology (religious or otherwise).
Post a Comment