A group of university students protest outside
the administration building. Their complaint: they want to ban racism, sexism,
homophobia, islamophobia and all other forms of intolerance;
New York City’s Commission on Human Rights wants
to re-interpret the city’s anti-discrimination laws. These will cover all
citizens in all public places. If a person is denied same-sex facilities, or
cross-dressers are treated differently or if a person is called ‘he’ when they
want to be called ‘she,’ this would be a violation of the anti-discrimination
regulations. The penalty: a $250,000 fine.
Religious and social conservatives complain of
being silenced by the social media giants for violating ‘anti-abuse’
regulations. What is the ‘abuse?’ Expressing a dissenting opinion from those
from the Left Wing.
What do all these incidents have in common?
The demise of free speech as we know it.
For all these examples, and many more, are
practicing ‘political correctness,’ with the ultimate goal of ‘preventing
offence.’
Contrary to popular notion, political
correctness has been around for a long time. It basically paints a desired
narrative and will suppress any and all voices who do not support this
narrative. As an enemy of ‘free speech,’ it has no equal. ‘The Narrative’ is
more important than facts, truth, common sense, Godliness, or every day
justice. Failure to conform to the political correctness and the new tolerance
will invite a torrent of abuse (bigot, hater, phobe, ist), mandatory attendance
in ‘sensitivity sessions,’ being fined or threatened with prison. Even a few
Christian organisations are firing employees who are politically incorrect.
In the postmodern times, political correctness
is viewed this way: reality is not discovered, it is created by our words.
Therefore, we need to use vocabulary that is tolerant, inclusive, and
affirming, especially towards women, racial minorities, multiculturals, Muslims
and LGBTs. These erstwhile marginalised groups are viewed as the victims and
underdogs by the white, male, Christian establishment. Bottom line:
Today’s political correctness includes the ‘right’ not to be offended,
particularly if you are in one of the above categories.
Being deliberately offensive is obnoxious.
Being offended is bondage and hurtful.
But can we really legislate against offensive
speech?
Can we insulate people from offence?
Is there a ‘better way?’ (SHORT ANSWER: Yes!).
Let us bear some facts in mind:
First, we live in a fallen world. Bad things can
happen to good people and good things can happen to bad people. This situation
will be radically changed for the better, but in the meantime that is the
reality. For Bible-believing Christians, if we are going to ‘fight the good
fight of faith’ (I Timothy 6:12), let’s realise that there are punches and
blows along the way. We can either retire into a corner to ‘lick our wounds,’
or resiliently bounced back to live and fight another day. Our victory is assured
(I Corinthians 15:57).
Second, the attempt to prevent offensive speech
is actually an attack on ‘freedom of speech.’ Freedom of speech is the first of
our freedoms, along with freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, freedom of
association, freedom of conscience. It is part and parcel of a democratic
society. If ‘social progressives’ and ‘political correctness’ succeeds in
limiting free speech in the name of tolerance, anti-discrimination and ‘the
right not to be offended,’ democracy as we know it will go out the window.
Without exaggeration, tyranny will not be far behind.
Third, the bar has been lowered alarmingly.
Postmodernism has reduced and redefined words like ‘tolerance,’ ‘hate,’
‘marriage,’ family,’ and ‘offence.’ The classic, time-honoured definitions of
these and other terms has been transformed beyond recognition. In the past, to
be ‘offensive’ meant to be arrogantly rude, irreverent, deliberately setting
out to be haughty and hurtful.
Today, people are apparently so hyper-sensitive
and thin-skinned that merely disagreeing with an individual is perceived as a
‘personal attack.’ Taking another position to ‘The Narrative’ is seen as
‘micro-aggression,’ ‘white privilege,’ and ‘cultural appropriate,’ against the
other party. Religious conviction is deemed as ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate’ when
it comes in conflict with the agenda of ‘social progressives.’ Religious
freedom, as well as freedom of speech, are seriously under threat in this
milieu.
There must be a better way!
And there is … stay tuned for part 2.
Comments
Post a Comment