The case for freedom of speech on religion
 In the first of a two-part article, Network Norwich columnist James Knight, argues that we should be free to speak openly about Christianity and other religions.
The subject we are now going to discuss (this week and next) is one of the most important subjects of our time, and as Christians it is a subject which affects every single one of us. Something has happened which has brought about the partial erosion of religious discussion, and here I wish to proclaim that the truth should be made known and that this creep must be faced.
There is no reason at all why religion should be afforded this special privilege whereby one cannot speak openly about it. This creep has left many fervent believers feeling rather perturbed by the tacitly enforced silence, and very often those who wish they could speak more openly about religion find themselves in the horrible position of convicting themselves of thought-crime for even thinking about questioning someone else’s religious belief. But it has to stop soon before it becomes much worse - and the only way it can be stopped is if we stop it.
If you believe that Christ is Lord then you must believe that all other religions are false - therefore it remains certain that there are things which need saying that are not being said because of this fear of speaking out. Without the convention of placation that pervades our society (in the guise of good manners) false religions would not be able to withstand criticism and solid reasonable enquiry, because they do not have the resources with which to do the withstanding. False religions cannot be defended philosophically when there are no credible reasons for their veracity. Our feelings on this matter should be feelings of unity; that is, we would all be in a much better position (including those whose beliefs we are questioning) if we henceforward abandoned these social conventions that make it so difficult to speak openly about religion.
We have seen with the Danish Cartoons and (much worse) in the case of September 11th how the religious left has shamefully fawned over murderous Islamists for fear of upsetting them. These are extreme examples of ‘attempted suppression’ which are happening all over the world. Christians are finding it increasingly difficult to speak openly, not just about other faiths, but about their own faith too. I put it down to several things, most of which are easily soluble (a lack of space and time prohibits a full analysis). But there is one difficulty as regards questioning the validity of other religions - the cardinal difficulty which underpins many of the others - it is the respect for other people’s cultures to which we find ourselves impelled to pay regard, over an objective analysis.
A friend once asked me whether as a Christian I thought it easier to convince atheists or people of other faiths that Christianity is true. It was a question I took seriously. On the one hand, most atheist individuals would have less difficulty becoming a Christian than someone who had a different religious belief and had to change faiths - risking all sorts of upset. On the other hand those who are of other faiths already believe in a god of some sort, so one might argue that they are already worshipfully inclined. If I were pressed to choose, I would say the latter are more difficult to convince - after all, it is better to have no flowers at all than flowers that are rotten and decaying.
Most criticism of Christianity is either a complete misunderstanding of what the faith really is, or the criticism is so limited to perceived activity from the outside that it becomes unsound the moment it leaves one’s lips. It would be like watching a man reading a newspaper on the train and expecting to know what his family life is like. The very most one could infer from observation alone is a judgement about his choice of clothes and his choice of newspaper.
Of course those who disdain the word ‘Christianity’ are often doing so because of personal insecurity, particularly in an age when Christianity is perceived as anachronistic and passé. One might argue that this day and age has produced more insecure people than ever before, but that would be being churlish for the sake of being pointful (although I do not doubt that the point is a valid one). It is a problem that many people in this country regard the term ‘atheist’ as an axiomatic compliment about their ‘worldliness’, their abilities in ‘free-thinking’ and the ‘image’ with which they are pathologically preoccupied - the results of which are their public abjurment or renouncement to rid themselves of any accusations of weakness.
As difficult as this insecurity is, I believe that such attitudes are in fact causes active in producing the insecurities in the first place. In other words, such bad feeling about Christianity is likely to prevent an objective viewpoint, and in the process very likely to blur its real blessings. A lack of respect or reverence for the thing being observed is bound to taint one’s judgement.
Now as regards the Christian’s view of other faiths, we see that just the opposite is happening; that is, no such tainted judgement is occurring. Too much reverence and respect for other belief systems is causing us to be apathetic as regards false witnessing and spurious beliefs. It is commonly thought that to be respectful to others one must respect the views that you believe to be mistaken. Now if ‘respect’ is taken to mean refrain from ridicule, then, of course, I have no objection. But ‘respect’ is too often taken to mean ‘keep silent’ - thus you hear people assert that it would be a terrible thing to suggest that our Muslim neighbour holds an erroneous belief when he says that the Koran is the word of God. Of course, it is usually atheists that object the most to criticism of other religions (Christians, in my experience, mostly stay silent) - and in the sense of being on the outside it is easy to see why. Atheists do not see Christianity as the true and only word of God, so it is not surprising that they think as they do.
In this sense ‘truth’ is a term conferred from the outside (usually relativistically) to belief systems which are not themselves examples of anything above personal preference. This is an interpretation that must be corrected from the outset. No man should believe something because he prefers to believe it, he should believe it because he thinks it is true. An unsuccessful job applicant might prefer to think that he was given the job, but he will soon find out on Monday morning that his preferences are weak and not related to the truth. As regards other belief systems from other cultures, I am certain that the same thing is happening; that is, the preference for, say, Islam or Hinduism is really a preference (or reverence) for a cultural tradition or upbringing, and can, by itself, bear no resemblance to the truth unless an outside analysis is brought in. Part of the Islamic tradition is that the adherents must pray five times a day, but this only tells us facts about tradition, it tell us nothing about whether Islam is true or not.
One of the biggest difficulties is that Christians will receive virtually no support from the government on this point; in fact, their position is one of an opposite viewpoint. They are forever engaged with the idea of religious pluralism in the sense that all belief systems are seen as meritorious commitments that confer prestige upon those who subscribe to them, while all the time knowing that they are all mutually exclusive and cannot therefore all be true.
All of these things, I think, contribute largely to the reason why Christianity is on the fringes in this country. And here we see both the problem and the solution. The fastest growing churches in this country (the Pentecostal churches) are growing because they are being very open about their faith, and because they are engaging with people on the outside. Such an approach, as brilliant as it is in the context of proselytisation, will only reach a minority of people. The only way to reach the masses is, to borrow a term from Thomas Jefferson, to break down the walls of separation. Until we become intrepid in speaking out about Christianity in a ‘true or false’ manner, we will always find that many people see it as a personal preference, as opposed to a statement about facts. And, I’m afraid, in order to do this, we are going to have to speak up about the spuriousness of other religions, for if we do not, there will always be many people (perhaps even the majority still) that see Christianity as a preferred belief instead of the only true belief.
The very last thing Christ said to His disciples was that we should go and spread the word to everyone. His unpopularity was because He spoke out against tradition. It is time for us to do the same. It is easy to call forward atheists and agnostics, after all, when you tell them that their efforts to forge chains and remain distinct in the pleasure of admiration are paralysing distractions as regards the real nature of the inner-self and their deepest desires, they know deep down that you are right. But tell a Jewish man that He is mistaken about the Messiah -that Christ is, in fact, the living God, and he will likely think you’re wrong every step of the way.
Of course, bad habits of thinking affect every part of life, the culture, the tradition, the rituals, the social life, and other things as well. But it is usually the case that these things are just as likely to prolong the bad habits and subjective viewpoints, as they are to offer any glimpses of objectivity. Those who read literature with the hope of finding something original will almost always fail to do so. But read literature for the pleasure intended by the writer and you very often find something original; for the true pursuits of originality (and of truth) come not when we are looking for something for the self, but when we are looking the intrinsic value intended in the work itself.
 Of course, Christianity is the one big exception to the rule; for a man can come in purely for the benefits of improving the self and find that God’s grace extends far beyond his own aspirations. The real enjoyment and the true glory must come as a surprising by-product of a bigger thing. This applies to literature and poetry and philosophy and science, only insofar as the mind is affiliated with the bigger thing in the first place. But with Christianity it is wholly different. That is why a Muslim girl in a remote part of Indonesia can see an image of Christ and have New Testament dictation from Him in a place where the Koran was the only book known to the inhabitants. The wonders of Christ’s revelation are not limited by any earthly things.
The claims of atheists and agnostics might be better if they could provide one shred of evidence that their dismissal of Christianity for a solipsistic life was enriching in any way. But if the opposite were true (which I firmly believe is the case) we should expect to see it in every insecurity, in every attempt to be admired, and in every attempt to break free from the chains of enslavement that mental incarceration brings. Such experiences, seemingly pure and pleasurable at a superficial and transient level, cannot be enriching, for they can only impoverish the self if it was created for something bigger. Real blessings come to men when they are trying to bless others not when they are trying hard to feel secure themselves. Becoming a Christian later in life, I have seen very intimately the casual connection between ‘before’ and ‘after’ - and not one strand of the former can ever enrich wholly unless it is brought in to the latter. Lust is only a blessing when it is experienced in selfless adoration; literature only enriches when it surprises; Christianity is only a blessing to those who can see its true nature.
As regards our honesty in speaking out - the real disingenuous Christians are not those who speak out, they are those who pay lip service by flattering people whose beliefs are all the time thought to be irreconcilable to the truth. Reticence in disputation is often confused with respecting the person with whom one is in dispute, but to me just the opposite is true. To feel that somebody is mistaken or deluded and to keep silent when one is required to speak out is, in my view, the worst form of placation that there is. It is a great mistake to think that Christianity naturally produces people who are ready and willing to speak out against falsehood. It is something which one must work on even aside from the Christian faith; that is, the personality that Christ is changing bit by bit must involve some effort from the individual as well.
One must not be confused into thinking that warm feelings in the midst of mutual disagreement is always a good thing, particularly when discussing religion; for if one is not careful the feeling of certainty that we have will be obscured by attempts to compromise the truth. In case I am misunderstood, I do not mean that we should go at it like a bull in a china shop, after all, we do not want to spread the good news in the same way that salesmen try to sell us their latest product; that is to say, we do not have a perishable faith in belief itself, we have conviction and passion in believing what is true. When ‘religion’ itself is hypostasised, it immediately invokes feelings of false-objectivity, and is thus seen as a preference among many preferences.
Let me offer you a parallel. Suppose you, as a Christian, had been to a business meeting to discuss company finances, and present at the table was a room full of religious people - all of whom had a non-Christian faith. And let us say that the meeting was very convivial and some of the discussion consisted of hobbies and interests as well as work-related issues. Would anyone be brave enough to admit to themselves that the real frustration was not anything to do with business or extraneous interests, that the seemingly irremovable barrier was really a matter of objective truths regarding their religious beliefs?
Furthermore, then suppose that on your journey home you saw a homeless man sitting on a dirty coat engrossed in reading the Bible, would not even the truth about the harsh realities of his situation be temporarily suspended in your mind while you considered for a second what he might be getting from the particular verse he was reading? For here would be something concrete - a moment in which all the blessings and objective truths had no interference from subjective fallacies or placatory obligations. Here would be the truth, one man and the truth. As has been said before (by Hume, I think) ‘Better to be an unhappy man than a happy pig’.
After the business meeting in which there had been shrewd observations and passionate declarations yet not one mention of the clear polarity regarding objective truths, would it not be elating to see a man whose immediate concerns were rested upon a ledge supported by strong foundations of objectivity, for a brief moment oblivious to his plight? For here I should feel that I had been in touching distance of something special - the faint melody of a glorious tune was not very far away.
I am sure that we are all of one mind regarding this point about speaking out. We see how easy it is to speak out against theocracies because we can see, in the case of Islam, that falsehood in its smallest sense is bound to be magnified in its largest sense. The more erroneous the foundations the more repressive it will be. The same is true of all theocracies - we are fallen men; that is why even a Christian theocracy should strike us with trepidation. The expedient nature of political decision-making is limited by its own utilitarian principles. Anything as glorious as Christianity cannot fall into this category and is thus less spoiled and less sullied when kept out of politics.
Some might disagree on the basis that if we had a House of Commons full of devout Christians one might expect to see a near perfect system of government, but I think this presumption is mistaken. Add individual failure (an inevitable thing) to the political spectrum en masse and you will soon see that expectation will stultify real progression; that is, politics is by its very nature the worst corruption of all and likely to place well-meaning individuals in situations where the right thing to do is not always the simplest solution. Do not misunderstand me, I do not object to having a House of Commons which consisted of many Christian MPs, but the constitution and the Bible must not encroach upon one another, for when that happens you can be sure that public demand will see that the latter is compromised more than the former. It is true that much of our moral awareness comes from Christian values, but that is equally the reason why it is so hard to uphold in tricky political situations.
The old ‘left’ is beginning to die in this country, and as a result of this we find that attempts at superiority are less distinguishable than they once were. In other words, if political opinions are closer to a consensual feeling, it is going to be hard to disagree unless some other form of subjectivity is brought in to replace the old ‘true-false’ dichotomy. In the case of religions, politicians have made every effort to see that this happens. Faced with the prospect of an intellectual war between major faith groups regarding the true and false nature of such beliefs, they smuggle in tactics of appeasement which appeal to the multicultural feeling that this nation has cultivated so well.
We live in a time where ‘intellectualism’ is very much thought of as part of the elite forces. Christianity, true as it may be in terms of validity, strives for a quite different result, different in the sense that education is not the means of access as it is in elitist circles. I do not mean that education is not a good thing, but right now (as in the case of the Jesuits long ago) knowledge acquired is viewed in a sort of two-tier system both of intellectualism and of external achievement. The corollary of that is that at the opposite level people are more impressionable than ever before - the miseducated really can be led by the first thing that offers superficial and transitory comfort. They are just right for those who wish to create serfdom (the very mild form that is seen in this country) and live in a world of stereotypes.
If things are seen for their utilitarian qualities then surely we must expect (or at least hope) that the things which are most beneficial to the individual are the things which he is learning. It is no good having a boy who learns during school how to do tricks on his skateboard but fails to get an education. Similarly in this day and age people disdainfully ask, ‘What good can religion do for me?’ - but surely to ask this is to be guilty of confusing subjectivity with objectivity; it would be like expecting an exam paper to help the boy pass the test. It was the learning that was supposed to do him good not the test itself - the test only shows how much he has read. In the same way, religion itself is not good for someone; it is only truth which is good for someone (in the long run). Every false belief will catch you out in the end. Christianity is not good for you because it happens to be a religion; it is good for you because it happens to be true. Your adherence to it does not tell you how much of it you know, it tells you that you have knowledge of the ‘true and false’ dichotomy, an awareness of what is true, and a commitment to that truth.
It is one of the saddest things that I have had to admit to in my adult life, but many people either do not want to think for themselves or do not know how to. In the sense of independent thought, they are little more than plasticine, ready to be picked up by hands that can make the prettiest figure. And if that sounds offensive to you, I should remind you that your indignation is a little part of the subjectivism to which I am referring. If this is a fact, it must be countered, however unpleasant and disquieting it seems. That is the light that we were called to shine (Matthew 5:14-16).
To all the Christians reading this, I have one more point. No one said it was going be comfortable. If comfort was all that we wanted we could have subscribed to one of those belief systems where consolation is favoured over truth. But part of the real glory comes when we can be a voice for the people, for those who are subsumed by falsehood. The very nature of delusion is that those who are deluded often find it difficult to diagnose. This is not always as one-sided as some people think. This occurs, of course, with problems of secondary-delusion; that is, they know the truth but have such difficulty applying it to their lives that they end up living dry lives.
On the one hand we have the sullen types, those who have never risen above the everyday pietism that they were taught by their parents. They do not perceive any particular absence and are quite happy to carry on with their conscience appeased. On the other hand we have those whose commitment was merely the acknowledgement of an objective truth - useful when piety is required but a superfluous element in everyday thrills and expectations.
Both types have much to learn, not because they are particularly deserving of criticism, but by virtue of the fact that we all have much to learn. Those who are deceived into thinking that theirs is a different truth are in a very different position to those that think there is no one truth at all. But both of these positions need to be countered without equivocation. The glorious things are the things which can become most perverted when shadowed by badness; thus if a man comes within hearing distance of the melody, he is just as likely in this day and age to listen out for another tune.
I write in this case, as I do in most other cases, in the hope of rousing others into beating the retreat, into knocking back the complacency, into breaking the silence. Faith in ‘belief’ itself and faith in ‘no belief’ both really amount to the same thing - a submission of the will - a submission to the vague colony of subjectivisms. If we are to have any success in spreading the good news to a level of ubiquity far beyond the fringes then we must stop trying to swat mosquitos; we must drain the whole swamp - for in doing so we will bring about much clearer thinking as regards the real nature of ‘true and false’ and of speaking openly about these things.
The views carried here are those of the author, not of Network Norwich, and are intended to stimulate constructive debate between website users. We welcome your thoughts and comments, posted below, upon the ideas expressed here. You can also contact the author direct at james.knight@norfolk.gov.uk
James is a Norwich local government officer, author and Proclaimers church member in Norwich.
|
