The facts answer

WHAT WE BELIEVE COUNTS MORE THAN EVERY OFFENSE
Bearing insults and lies: on this can depend the liberty to practice one’s faith and the survival of reason.

by JOHN WATERS

One of the more irritating arguments that is made in the context of discussions about the value of free speech is the one about there being no permission to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater. What if the theater is actually on fire? Must we then stay silent for fear of panicking people? Hardly. If the theater is on fire, there is an obligation to alert people to the truth of what is happening, by speaking that truth as loudly as possible.
This, of course, is a different way of seeing the question of free speech–different, that is, from the encroaching norm of our society now, which vacillates between seeing the idea of free speech as an absolute value and seeking to qualify it for the sake of peace or political correctness. Thus, freedom is celebrated to the point whereupon it clashes with some other highly rated value of our time–for example, the claims to immunity from cultural norms of some minority grouping–and then it is snuffed out by the torrent from a thousand liberal fire-extinguishers.
We have encountered these questions yet again recently in controversies about the film, “Innocence of Muslims,” and the renewal of friction arising from cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad.
Of course, truth is not a simple matter. Who decides what is true? How is it to be decided whether a speaker is speaking sincerely what he or she believes to be true? Indeed, are these to be the criteria? I don’t believe so. Sometimes we must put up with what we believe to be lies and dishonesty in the interests of protecting the continued right to speak at all. This may not seem entirely reasonable, and yet it is the charter upon which the survival of reason may depend.
Christians, I believe, need to be cautious about welcoming the modern tendency toward implementing legislation designed to curb “incitement to religious hatred.” Christians often become offended by things that are said by secularists and atheists, and it is tempting in such moments to find solidarity with the adherents of other faiths who take what appears to be a similar kind of offense. But we must be careful. Every idea represents a provocation to someone. Every word contains a potential offense. The right to hold to a faith in public, to practice and bear witness to it, may one day depend on our willingness to bear the offense in the present with a shrug or a smile. If religious people, of any description, subscribe to the curtailment of the freedom of others to laugh at or criticize them, the vindication they may feel in their success may be short-lived, as the restrictions they have supported are extended to curtail also their own right to speak of their own God in public. If we start qualifying the concept of freedom, we must accept that others will add their own qualifications and, in the end, there may be a curbing of everyone’s freedom, perhaps ultimately to the point of absolute curtailment.
Just because one individual or group is disposed to react in an extreme fashion to an insult or offense does not meant that the capacity to express such a provocation is itself the problem. Courtesy is a wonderful thing, but it should not be compulsory. The right to say what we believe, no matter what that might be, is something we all depend upon, because it is central to the humanity we share.