Evangelicals Now
Christian news worldwide
magnifying glass Search archives
home Home check the archives Archives Subscribe Subscriptions Advertising Information & booking of classifieds Adverts Find a local evangelical Church Find a church for the search engines and extremely curious! About us Contact us Site Map
Printable
Version

The Commentary

Freedom of speech

Freedom is a Christian ideal and should be one of the hallmarks of a democratic and healthy society.

Recently, however, the whole issue of freedom of speech has begun to run into many difficulties. Back in December, the Sikh community understandably felt very aggrieved over the play entitled Bhesti (Punjabi for ‘dishonour’), which portrayed immorality and abuse in a Sikh temple. There were angry scenes on the streets of Birmingham and police had to be involved in holding back the protesters. Eventually the play was closed down by the theatre’s executive director.

In January, BBC2 broadcast a production of Jerry Springer: The Opera. I understand that this musical is notorious for containing over 8,000 expletives, and, along with many blasphemies, it depicts the characters of the Lord Jesus Christ, Mary and God as self-centred sexual deviants. The show’s artistic director is said to admit that it is a deliberate attack on good taste and the BBC concedes that the broadcast was intended to ‘push back the boundaries of taste and decency’. I, along with many other Christians, sent emails of protest to the BBC, but to no avail. That Christians are offended seems to be of no concern to the Corporation brought to birth under the Christian influence of Sir John Reith.

Causing offence

We feel upset for the Sikhs who have had to endure offence from the writers of Bhesti, and we feel upset for ourselves as Christians knowing that the BBC is so ready to promote blasphemy. What is the answer to these kinds of troubles which are beginning to afflict our pluralist society?

Some would argue that David Blunkett, the ex-Home Secretary, was right to seek the introduction of laws against causing religious offence. Presumably such people as playwrights who created works which cause deep insult to religious believers of the various faiths would then think twice or suffer the punishment of the law of the land.
But as I consider this possibility I am very uneasy.

First of all, this would be a diminution of freedom of speech. I may deeply disagree with what other people think or say, but I am very unhappy about loss of freedom.

Secondly, if such laws are introduced it is certain that it will be evangelical Christianity which will suffer. In the last year we have already seen Christians muzzled in Canada, no longer able to say what the Bible says on the matter of homosexuality. In December a court in Australia convicted two Christians for speaking in public about the tenets of Islam as found in the Qur’ran (see news item on page 10). The law in postmodern society will inevitably be biased towards groups it sees as a minority and who portray themselves as victimised. But the West, now being post-Christian, will never be Christians who will be put in such categories.

Thirdly, and perhaps this is the matter evangelicals have to take on board most of all, we must realise that the gospel which we love and preach is, by the New Testament’s own admission, an offence to people. The ‘offence of the cross’, which brought persecution on the apostle Paul, is a reality (Galatians 5.11). If we begin to back laws which make ‘religious offence’ a crime, then we will be, in effect, voting for the outlawing of the gospel itself.

Much as I decry the blasphemous misuse of artistic liberty which we have seen recently, I would rather preserve freedom of speech, and be able to protest to the BBC or whoever, than to see Britain become some kind of religious ‘police state’.

John Benton