Freedom of Speech Never was Supposed to be the Tool of Inciting Hatred

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Sep 24, 2012 at 18:51

In attempting to digest the intent of this article, what was striking was that in the argument that a 'tolerance' to insults was to be effectively woven into the fabric of covering of free speech, which from a purely Christian view, is, in and of itself, anti-Christian. If we are to be in obedience to the teaching of Yeshua HaMashiach, are we not supposed to be considerate to the feelings of others; that further, if a Muslim is to choose to be debasing towards others by adherence to his Quranic teachings, his future judgment for such abusive language is his own penalty to bear when his time to face judgment is come.

A true Christian disciple of Yeshua is to bear all things in love. Islam lost the original message of the love of Yeshua long ago and that is why they cannot get it right today. A Christian testimony need bear witness to the truth of the love of Almighty God through Yeshua, but does not need to bear enmity to the Muslims who are in desparate need of that love.

In the paragraph, "Attacking the sanctities of a religion, I submit, is quite unlike targeting the faithful of that religion. The former is protected speech, part of the give and take of the market place of ideas, not all of which are pretty. Freedom of speech means the freedom to insult and be obnoxious. So long as it does not include incitement or information that urges criminal action, nastiness is an essential part of our heritage." This is an oxymoron by a definitive Christian understanding; for insults are, by their very use as invectives, incitements, a technique through which we find many of followers of Islam, in common with the atheistic secularists and others of similar antagonism against Judeo-Christian mores, are quite at home in harboring their hatred in such abuse.

Alternately, free speech is not as a familiar right as one might suppose outside the United States Constitution, a situation that Americans have a difficult time with outside of the United States; and more frequently, in country as well. Such then is behind the reasoning we now find that those Constitutional issues are under two-pronged attacks; that a second amendment needs to remain strong if the first is to remain intact. This is a particular sticking point in defiance of implementing shari'a law.

Ever since the secularists were able to have the Supreme Court break covenant with the Constitution's base provisions, the United States has been under attack to carry home the Adversary's message that we do not need Almighty God in our daily circumstances, that the wages of such diffidence is being brought home today by watching all that was good about America now brought to nought and having to vote on something that was at one time the accepted relationship of a citizen to the Constitution that protected the inalienable rights. This did not mean to be mean in order to make a point.

Christ said it best; if you love me(Christ), keep my commandments; that of a love of Almighty God and love for one another, meaning keeping a civil tongue and not abusing it as is admonished by Yeshua's brother James. The Constitutional 'freedom of speech' was not meant to countermand Yeshua's words, but to provide a means to express the love for one another that was originally the hallmark of being American. Thanks to the Supreme Court's breach of that meaning, the argument of free speech with Islam is to be hard fought with many casualties because Christianity is now tethered with the mortal frame of speech and not a spiritual one.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".