Censorship of dissident ideas in an age of science

Seversky says, Having said that, I still maintain that those cases, such as that of the Klein’s bakery, do not amount to a campaign of persecution against Christianity as a whole. I say, How do you feel about the recent successful nationwide effort to shame and boycott the state of Indiana simply because of a law to protect the citizens right in cases like these? You say, I think the faith still retains a position of considerable privilege and influence in American society even if not quite as much as in past centuries. I say, The deist/secular/Milquetoast lowest common denominator official state religion of the American past was not Christianity but a hollow lapdog shell of it's self. Then as now Christians are tolerated as long as we don't make too many waves with those who are in power. Just ask the Christians of the past who bravely stood up against slavery and racism. peace fifthmonarchyman

SteRusJon @ 9

It has already been pointed out that there is more serious problem than “…persecuted? … Here in the US, not so much.” It is broader and deeper that the few above examples. Among those of us who once righteously demanded tolerance, there are now those who have become intolerant. Businesses and church affiliated groups sued to force them to participate in activities (providing contraception, abortion funding) and provide services that violate their consciences. Talk of doctors being required to engage in practices (abortions, euthanasia) that violate there consciences. It has become “hate speech” to even express one’s conviction in these matters. These are people who hold their positions largely due to Christian faith convictions.

I am very wary of the concept “hate speech” being an offense under the law. It should not be an offense to express strong feelings on a matter even if it is offensive to an individual or a group. That is what freedom of expression must mean. The line should be drawn where the speech is an incitement to crime, where it calls upon others to commit murder, for example, even if it is done in the name of a particular faith. The problems of intolerance or bigotry or racism are human ones. We are all potentially prone to them unless we are mindful our own weaknesses. It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that members of the atheist or LGBT communities can be just as intolerant as their Christian counterparts. Members of the medical profession should be as free to follow the dictates of their conscience as anyone else. The only restriction would be where it leads them to violate their Hippocratic oath to do no harm. I can see no objection to a doctor not being compelled to perform abortions if they were against his or her religious convictions. Suppose, however, a pregnancy were to be judged to be an immediate threat to the mother’s life. Should a doctor’s objection to abortion be upheld if it caused the death of the mother, a death which the doctor had the power to prevent and had a duty to prevent under the Hippocratic oath? Seversky

johnspenn @ 7

Also note that these businesses have not declined to serve people who are LBGT, but they have declined to participate in same-sex marriages (SSM). In other words, it is an EVENT that these people are not willing to participate in and not a type of person they are refusing to serve. Should they be forced to participate in an event that violates their conscience, and if they do not participate, be forced to pay exorbitant fines and be driven out of business? Many think that this is how it should be. Suppose there is an LGBT owned t-shirt company that strongly believes in SSM. Some people who want to march at the capitol (wherever) in support of traditional marriage want 1000 t-shirts that read “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. Should the LGBT owners be compelled to print the t-shirts against their conscience? To be fair you can’t say yes to one circumstance and no to the other

I agree that a business should not be legally compelled to provide a service to any customer, any more than a customer should be legally compelled to purchase that service. It is a contractual arrangement that should not be the subject of coercion and that all parties should enter into voluntarily or not at all. In the case of a bakery refusing to supply cakes to an SSM, it should be their right to decline service to an LGBT couple or anyone else, whatever we might think of their reasons. The proper response to being declined is to take your business elsewhere. Find another bakery, one that is more than happy to take your money and provide catering services to your wedding. Having said that, I still maintain that those cases, such as that of the Klein’s bakery, do not amount to a campaign of persecution against Christianity as a whole. I think the faith still retains a position of considerable privilege and influence in American society even if not quite as much as in past centuries. There are no doubt extreme atheists who would like to see religions banned and all places of worship closed for good. I am opposed to that just as I was opposed to high school students being compelled to attend Christian prayer services each day whether they believed in it or not. These are matters of conscience and people should be free to follow their consciences at least up to the point where those beliefs cause harm to others. Seversky

Seversky, It has already been pointed out that there is more serious problem than "...persecuted? ... Here in the US, not so much." It is broader and deeper that the few above examples. Among those of us who once righteously demanded tolerance, there are now those who have become intolerant. Businesses and church affiliated groups sued to force them to participate in activities (providing contraception, abortion funding) and provide services that violate their consciences. Talk of doctors being required to engage in practices (abortions, euthanasia) that violate there consciences. It has become "hate speech" to even express one's conviction in these matters. These are people who hold their positions largely due to Christian faith convictions. Full disclosure. I am a member of the LGBT community and a Christian of quite unorthodox beliefs. I think it is reprehensible for some of us who have suffered intolerance to be so intolerant of others. I see no reason to give others grief when they have founded reasons for beliefs or, even, actions that do me no real harm. When the services I want are available to me from other providers, they are doing me no real harm. When someone shakes their head in confusion when they pass me by, they are doing me no real harm. It is the responsibility of the all who are truly tolerant to defend the untolerated from the new intolerants, especially those in the halls of power. Stephen SteRusJon

Indeed its just a equation. The bosses try to stop criticism that does seem likely to persuade enough people or the right ones. Especially in a passion /cause that needs action now. Just clobber them with the truth and the truth of freedoms demand for no interference. They can't morally or intellectually win if the good guys man the trenches. Like on UD. Robert Byers

Seversky @ 6, There have been several stories lately that have the same theme as the Klein case in which bakers/florists and others have declined to participate in an event that they are morally opposed to, so it's not an isolated case. Also note that these businesses have not declined to serve people who are LBGT, but they have declined to participate in same-sex marriages (SSM). In other words, it is an EVENT that these people are not willing to participate in and not a type of person they are refusing to serve. Should they be forced to participate in an event that violates their conscience, and if they do not participate, be forced to pay exorbitant fines and be driven out of business? Many think that this is how it should be. Suppose there is an LGBT owned t-shirt company that strongly believes in SSM. Some people who want to march at the capitol (wherever) in support of traditional marriage want 1000 t-shirts that read "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Should the LGBT owners be compelled to print the t-shirts against their conscience? To be fair you can't say yes to one circumstance and no to the other. johnspenn

Seversky says, Are Christians being censored and persecuted? In some parts of the world, yes, they clearly are. Here in the US, not so much. I say, Check it out http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....35066.html

I remember that case. I thought that the forced closure of the Klein’s bakery taken together with the fine were excessive and disproportionate punishment in view of the harm done to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, supposed they had declined service to a black couple on the grounds that a tenet of the Klein’s faith was that their race was cursed as “sons of Ham” and could not be served or that they had declined to serve a Jewish couple on the grounds that Jesus had been murdered by the Jews? Besides, one or even a few cases like this hardly amount to evidence for a nationwide campaign to suppress Christianity as a whole. Seversky

Mung @ 3

Seversky: Is ID being censored? Yes.

I think you just provided more evidence that you are wrong. Seversky

Seversky says, Are Christians being censored and persecuted? In some parts of the world, yes, they clearly are. Here in the US, not so much. I say, Check it out http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/bake-me-cake-or-else_935066.html peace fifthmonarchyman

Seversky: Is ID being censored? Yes. Mung

Is ID being censored? As far as I can see, no. ID proponents are still free to publish books, newspaper and magazine articles, blogs, comments on blogs and Tweets. They can still make movies, submit papers to scientific journals and even launch their own scientific journals if they prefer. Are Christians being censored and persecuted? In some parts of the world, yes, they clearly are. Here in the US, not so much. They have the same freedom of expression as itemized above for ID proponents. We don't see worshipers physically prevented from entering churches or participating in services. We don't see churches being forcibly closed. We don't see Christians rounded up and being trucked off to concentration camps or worse. Is it being excluded from the public square? Given that it is almost compulsory to profess some sort of acceptable religious belief in order to stand a chance of being elected to public office, I would say no. What we do see are politicians and religious leaders employing the time-honored tactic of encouraging a sense of victimization - amounting to paranoia in some cases - in their audience. The widespread allegation that the government banned prayer in public schools is a case in point. What happened, in fact, was that that state-sponsored and mandatory prayer was ruled unconstitutional. No religion has the right to compel non-believers to attend its acts of collective worship nor can they enlist the authority of the state or its agents to coerce said non-believers into so doing. That is what was banned. That is not censorship. Seversky

It's interesting to take a survey of the most notable and visible of those who would censor other's speech and ideas that run counter to their own. To name a few; dictatorships, communist regimes, evolutionists, climate alarmists, liberals (in the sense of politics here in the USA), the LGBT[etc] lobby, the Catholic Pope (as evidenced by the recent climate discussions held in the Vatican),... Feel free to add to this list. In fact please do! johnspenn