A CAUSE FOR OFFENCE

We all know of the Christian air stewardess who was suspended for wearing a cross whilst on duty. Some may even know of the council office worker who was told to remove her wedding ring whilst at work. Recently a Christian mental health worker was suspended by the NHS for sharing privately with her work colleagues Christian principles in connection with abortion advice. In the first and last of these cases re-instatement thankfully was made, but only through the intervention of a Christian Legal Agency.

In all three cases the real scandal was the charge preferred against these people: doing or saying things that “some people may find offensive”. One wonders what kind of person would find the sight of a woman’s wedding ring “offensive” – would it be some one who objects to life long vows of commitment? One has to retort that such stricture is itself an act that is grossly offensive..

This kind of arbitration, “because it might offend”, is based on incredibly shaky ground. It never ought to be at the bottom of any stricture. All it does is to give a handle for some people (one might say, slightly obsessive people) to abuse other people who have a different or opposite viewpoint. There is evidence of this across the world in accusations against Christians where they are in a minority. I seem to remember that the argument against the old British blasphemy laws was that there should be no law against non-religious opinion, and such opinion should not be treated as an offence. There was great outcry until these laws were rendered defunct. Now it seems a Christian stance is the new blasphemy in the sight of certain groups of people and the blasphemy law must be reinstated in a new guise to crush such a stance. Certainly there seems to be very little of the “live and let live” in these acts; they smack much more of intolerance, and that in an age which outwardly screams for tolerance as the supreme virtue.

The problem with making a ruling against something “that some people might find offensive” is of course that it is virtually impossible to make any objective decision as to what is or is not offensive. It is totally dependent upon some party proclaiming they have been offended. In such a situation it will always be the louder voice or the greater threat of retaliation that wins the day. A person of militant outlook will be the one who uses the ruling, and will always win against one of a more peaceful outlook. It is indeed exactly the situation in which real tolerance is most likely to disappear. It means a reversion to a “might is right” position.

Individual cases are always important, but there is a very far reaching case being courted at the level of the United Nations. Ironically enough there is a movement afoot to get a ruling which would stricture defamation of religion. It’s a blasphemy law in new clothes! It is based on precisely the same principle as the cases we have looked at above, namely that nothing must be allowed which offends. What happens, however, when one set of religious beliefs are “offensive” to another? And that is the reality world-wide! Once again the loudest voice wins, and the most violent cause overwhelms the peaceable cause. And that is happening in many Muslim dominated areas. If such a ruling is adopted by the U.N. we shall have militant groups using the legislation simply to persecute minorities. There has rarely been such a misleading and dangerous proposal.



Bob

To make a comment: click on word “comments” below, write your comment in the white box which appears and add your name and e mail address (if you wish), choose “select profile”, click “anonymous” and then continue.