A couple of weeks ago, Columbia FAVS colleague Nabihah Maqbool addressed the latest incidence of an unflattering (and to Muslims, blasphemous) presentation of the prophet Muhammad. Her thoughts sparked several comments, including a few from me.
That brief discussion made me want to say more, since it touched on a favorite topic: affirming and supporting diversity of thought in our society. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that modern Americans hold a variety of views on just about every conceivable topic, including those religious and political.
Lately, however, we haven’t been very good about working – or even talking – with people who have a different opinion than our own. In politics, in religion, on just about every topic, people hold their views with clenched fists, believing that anyone with a different view is absolutely and dangerously wrong.
How does one affirm one’s own belief without denigrating other beliefs? How do we encourage debate without having it turn into divisive arguing? How might our culture support free expression without either establishing one view as “right” or destroying civility in a never-ending spiral of woundedness?
Once upon a time, Americans seemed to be more sensitive to the opinions and concerns of others. We didn’t discuss religion and politics in mixed company, for instance, reserving our opinions for the like-minded while dealing politely with others in the community at large.
The ability to have “in-group” discussions, however, has become a casualty of our hyper-connected society; everything anyone might say is immediately available everywhere. Some people haven’t learned that – or don’t seem to care if others hear their intemperate opinions.
Sam Harris, one of the so-called New Atheists, considers it a sign of the unhealthy influence of religion that people dare to be offended when someone insults their faith or its representative. Our freedom of speech, he declares, must be absolute and inviolate, and others’ feelings be damned.
The discussion on Nabihah’s commentary revolved around whether anyone has the “right not to be offended,” as if “my” rights are sacrosanct and the other person is always the problem.
I prefer to think of it – and I believe this perspective supports a healthier society overall – as a question of whether I have the right to be obnoxious and offensive. Yes, we live in a “free society” with unprecedented amounts of personal liberty. But should our freedom be completely untempered?
Do we not, rather, have a mutual responsibility to maintain a society wherein everyone can realize the maximum level of freedom, even if that means self-limiting our own liberties in order to safeguard those of others? Why would anyone want to deliberately offend someone else?
Part of my perspective comes from viewing our society not as a bunch of unconnected individuals but as a collective in which each has an effect on all others and on the whole. So my ability to exercise my freedom is constrained by that exercise’s effect on you and your freedom – as the old saying goes, my freedom stops at the end of your nose.
It’s not that anyone has the right not to be offended; that’s not the issue. The real issue is that, in a society which rests on an implicit contract of mutual responsibility, I have the duty to hold your freedom as dearly as I hold mine, to safeguard your place in society with the same energy as I do mine.
If we were radically isolated, completely self-sufficient individuals who just happened to occupy adjacent plots of ground, this wouldn’t be an issue. But because we live in an interwoven society, and play interconnecting parts in a community, we should want to be more careful about how we express ourselves and refer to others.
The Christian apostle Paul addressed a very divided congregation in his first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 12, Paul reminds the various factions that they are in fact one body, and each has a role to play, as the parts of the human body each have their purpose. He even cautions that some parts may require a little more care or compassion than the stronger, less vulnerable ones.
The state of our political discourse is just one example of how claiming the freedom to be obnoxious interferes with our ability to solve problems constructively and achieve a better society for all.
The false woundedness of those who claim to be persecuted and the intentional offensiveness of folks like Sam Harris actually weakens our society and makes our vaunted freedom of expression seem less desirable to cultures that take seriously the collective good.
>
roy | Oct 1, 2012 | 10:36am
ROFL moment, when the atheist said, “and others’ feelings be damned.”
I will be just as temperate as Jesus, but I expect to be about as misconstrued as well, since the message remains the same. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
There are those who will be offended by this stone that causes them to stumble, and I do not abuse those who cannot see. But neither will I walk away from Truth - most especially for some relativism or consensus of the Lost.
Carla B. | Oct 1, 2012 | 1:25pm
Surprise! The world is full of gray areas. There is a balance to be struck between being silent vs. tactful and tolerant vs. deliberately abrasive. The correct approach is going to depend on the situation. Since I love analogies, I’m going to use a couple to illustrate my thoughts on the role of “being offensive”.
Consider your girlfriend comes out of the bedroom in bright orange pants with a bit of red trim down the legs. You now have no interest in being seen in public with her but is it worth speaking up? You might inquire if a golf outing is planned or if today is Freaky Friday at school. Perhaps you drop a couple hints that orange isn’t a flattering color. But if your partner says she thinks they are awesome pants, then you drop the issue. She’s now aware of your thoughts on her fashion choices but she’s free to wear what she wants.
Now consider your brother has been smoking meth. You know he’s aware of the health hazards but he continues. Do you just leave it that he’s been informed and now you can go back to minding your own business? What about the effects it has on his family since he’s spending his paycheck on drugs instead of food and bills? You have a responsibility to speak up and continue speaking up. And if quiet discussions don’t work, maybe you need to stage a big intervention, or yell at him, or tell his boss he gets high before work. You don’t have the right to chain him in a room until he gets clean, but you certainly should keep trying to make a difference.
So back to the issue of religious beliefs. I have the freedom to state my opinion and beliefs. You have the freedom to state yours. What if we don’t agree? We still have those same freedoms. You can say my beliefs are misguided; I can say yours are misguided. I can point out the inconsistencies in yours; you can point out the inconsistencies in mine. I may not like what you say, but you’ve got the right to say it.
What you don’t have the right to do, is say that I have to respect your beliefs and be nice—now you’re trampling on my freedom. I have to respect your freedom but I don’t have to respect your beliefs. PEOPLE have rights; IDEAS do not.
Making the assertion that I can’t poke at certain beliefs just tells me that you’re not confident that those beliefs can stand up to scrutiny. It tells me you’re scared that someone will point out obvious fallacies. It tells me that you don’t really understand why you believe what you believe. It tells me that a parent or other authority figure told you that it was right and you’ve not bothered to consider that it’s not. It tells me you’re afraid.
Steve Swope | Oct 1, 2012 | 2:18pm
Roy, to clarify - that’s my paraphrase of Harris’ attitude. And yes, the Gospel of John quotes Jesus on “the way, the truth and the life.” What he actually meant by that is another matter. Is it, as theological conservatives might say, a declaration that Christianity is the only “really true” religion? Or does it have more to do with the example Jesus set being “the way” to authentic, fully actualized humanity? I lean toward the latter.
Carla, interesting analogies. In the end, I agree with your 4th paragraph. Each of us, in this country, has the right both to hold and to assert his/her own beliefs, including the right to discuss with others the (perceived) inconsistencies in theirs. The marketplace of ideas, and all that.
But I’m not sure I can agree with your separation of person and beliefs - particularly when it comes to religious/spiritual ideas; they are often so constitutive of “who we are” that the beliefs themselves are inseparable from the person holding them. Your distinction seems artificial, academic - and not quite in tune with daily reality.
And I don’t think I’m suggesting we legislate niceness and make it mandatory. I do think our culture used to be better at voluntarily being nice and has gotten less nice in recent years. Niceness/civility ought to be a choice, but one our society might somehow promote as being part of “who we are” as a people. Jefferson and Hamilton, for instance, were quite far apart in their sense of the role of “the common man” in national decision-making, but they actually cooperated quite well in devising a form of government that upholds personal liberty.
So civility/niceness, as I see it, is part of our heritage of freedom and upholding individual rights; they don’t really work to build a unified society unless the implied responsibility of civility is part of the bargain. The contemporary emphasis on “my rights” has obscured that implicit duty, in my opinion.
Greg Lammers | Oct 3, 2012 | 10:16am
“Once upon a time, Americans seemed to be more sensitive to the opinions and concerns of others. We didn’t discuss religion and politics in mixed company, for instance, reserving our opinions for the like-minded while dealing politely with others in the community at large.”
The use of the phrase “Once upon a time” here lends an appropriate fairy tale quality to this paragraph. Was there a time when “Americans seemed to be more sensitive to the opinions and concerns of others?” If so was this time really some kind of golden age? Were people not discussing important subjects out of sensitivity or was it just as often fear?
Maybe our society was at one time more nice, maybe not. If so how was the niceness encouraged (enforced) and at what cost?
Whose opinions and concerns were Americans being so sensitive to? Women? Minorities? Taboos are places where lots of nastiness is hidden.
People identify strongly with all sorts of things yet you’ve carved faith beliefs out for some special consideration. Faith beliefs are opinions, ones which often lead to great harm, they deserve no more quarter than any other type of opinion no matter how strongly they’re held.
There are many faiths which are outrageously anti-LGBT, anti-woman, racist, anti-education, anti-modernity. Their adherents hold them as strongly as any progressive believer holds their opinions. Are all beliefs to be given the same consideration? If not who gets special treatment?
The idea that one must be silent about subjects others find distasteful leads people to hidden lives of secret shame, of being subject to those who aren’t afraid to openly swing clubs of superstition and tradition down upon them. The encouragement and enforcement of silence and taboo is a partner of abuse.
Steve Swope | Oct 3, 2012 | 10:47am
Greg, I agree that some people (I’m not sure I’d credit/blame their faith per se, so much as the unavoidable human error in interpreting it) are anti-someone or -something in ways that are distasteful to others. I don’t think I’ve argued that people ought to “be silent” either about their own beliefs or their reaction to the beliefs of others. I do believe we ought to be kinder and more circumspect in the ways we choose to express our disagreement - as the saying goes, to disagree without being disagreeable. And yes, both parties in the discussion have a role in that.
I also didn’t intend (did I do it?) to suggest that faith beliefs hold a special place; I mentioned our present political discourse as one example of the style of disagreement I find distasteful and unconstructive.
You have a point about “once upon a time” and its implication that there was once a “golden age.” Contrast current political discourse with that from the early days of our nation, and it’s clear that’s not so. Furthermore, if earlier times somehow prevented rancorous speech by shutting down some topics completely, to the detriment of women, minorities, the lgbt community - that’s a negative.
I’m not suggesting “silence.” I am advocating for greater sensitivity to the opinions of others - because as fallible human beings (and I don’t know anyone perfect yet) we ought to hold our own opinions with tentativeness - including our opinions about what’s “best” for others. And as citizens of a society that claims to hold freedom and individual expression in the highest regard, we ought to be doing all we can to guarantee that every opinion, no matter how personally distasteful, can be freely expressed.
But “freedom of expression” doesn’t exist in actual practice when offensiveness derails the social compact on which reasoned discussion depends. I believe it’s not only desirable but possible for people to express disagreement with respect for those they’re talking with, and without being obnoxious about it.
Add Your Comment