Following on from the horrible Charlie Hebdo atrocity there seemed to be little restriction as to what constitutes freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Where do we draw the line? Should there in fact be a line?
I certainly believe that all views should be allowed, but such views must be offered in a sensible and responsible manner. Do we have the full freedom to offend? What if an unfettered freedom to offend incites hatred and the carrying out of hate crimes?
I think certainly that the more responsible amongst us have a greater duty of care to ensure that opinions are expressed in a civil and respectful way, especially given the sensitivity involved.
Today, three innocent Muslims were murdered in the US in what has been headlined as being committed by a suspected "anti theist". Professor Richard Dawkins, to his immense credit, immediately condemned the murder.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-condemns-chapel-hill-shooting-suspected-to-have-been-carried-out-by-antitheist-that-left-three-muslims-dead-10037983.html
As at the time of writing I don't know if today's killings were carried out by an "anti theist" and I certainly don't know his motivation. That said, perhaps the killings should encourage those who are engaged in the debate about the existence of God to act in a sensible and responsible manner and certainly not in a way that could incite hatred and/or hatred by others.
In my blog, I try my utmost to be respectful. I do not think lesser of someone who does not believe in God, I do not hate them. Indeed, I have been surprised at the nasty comments I have received to my blog which I assume stems from a reader's disagreement to my belief in God. Where does that venom come from? You can be passionate about a belief (or disbelief) but this shouldn't lead to hatred or the incitement of hatred in others and I think the higher your profile you have the more you need to think about how others might interpret your actions.
In the context of Professor Richard Dawkins, he is passionate about his beliefs and I respect him for that. His books are thoughtful (although I don't agree with his conclusions). That said, I don't think he needs to approach the subject with "ridicule" as he mentions on his Twitter profile. We can lighten the debate with good humoured comments but "ridicule"?
rid·i·cule
ˈridiˌkyo͞ol/
noun
- 1.the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior."he is held up as an object of ridicule"
verb
- 1.subject (someone or something) to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior."his theory was ridiculed and dismissed"
One synonym for "ridicule" is "contempt". How far away is this from "hatred"?
ha·tred
ˈhātrəd/
noun
- intense dislike or ill will."racial hatred"
synonyms: loathing, hate, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration;
To what extent can you have contempt for an idea and/or a belief but not have the same contempt for the person with the objectionable idea or belief? What if your contempt of an idea inspires someone to have contempt for the one who holds the objectionable idea?
Certainly, I don't intend to ridicule anyone's beliefs no matter how much I may object to them.
Indeed, there is also the danger that your views can be mis-interpreted. Does this matter? Well, I suppose it depends on who you are. If you are a high profile figure who people respect, look up to and follow then I think it matters more.
Looking at Professor Dawkins' t-shirt - "Religion - together we can find the cure" - could this be misinterpreted? What is the cure? Medicine? Intellectual reasoning? When I first saw the t-shirt I thought of Sylvester Stallone.
Of course, you cannot be held responsible for the criminal acts of someone who plainly takes what you say and do out of context but I would have thought that leaders in this debate should debate with utmost responsibility. Does such responsibility allow for "good humoured ridicule"? Would be interested in the views of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment