Protected speech: Religion

A very fine line exists when it comes to the discussion of religion and protected speech. On one hand, the religious beliefs of a human being should not be subject to judgment or scrutiny. However, it is the responsibility of journalists, and of all people, to critically assess the human race and the aspects of our lives.

It cannot be denied that religion is often responsible for controversy, conflict and the loss of human life. Religion can fuel the fire on an unrelated issue and end in war and catastrophe. Bringing up the topic of religion in conversation is a surefire way to offend or insult. One’s religion is so deeply personal; it feels like a direct attack on your person when your religion is attacked. But the actions of some religious extremist groups call the integrity of the entire religion into question. Such actions cannot be ignored – we, as journalists, have a responsibility to examine and analyze.

I believe for the sake of this discussion that it is important for me to note my views on religion. I was raised in a household where religion simply did not exist. I attended a Jesuit high school and elected to continue my Jesuit education through college. I would call myself a spiritual agnostic. I have no qualms as far as discussing my religious beliefs with anyone who can keep an open mind. That being said, I personally would not be offended if my religious views were attacked but I know how hurtful it could be for others.

While I do favor laws that protect and individual universal civil liberty, I see value in going about communication and religion from both directions. Discussions surrounding religion have the potential to be the most offensive discussions of all, especially in the case of certain journalists creating deliberately offensive and controversial content (i.e. Jyllands-Posten). At the same time, we cannot go around walking on eggshells because we are concerned that an opinion one has might offend another. Nothing would ever get accomplished if we so carefully measured every word we wanted to speak or print.

I firmly believe speech and laws concerning protected speech should continue to function as they do now. We live in a society where we have a marketplace of ideas, we place value in public opinion and the ability that all citizens have to raise their voice. But with this comes the fact that we sometimes have to hear some things that we don’t want to hear. While I find everything about the Westboro Baptist Church offensive, horrible and wrong, to take away their rights to express their opinions would be hypocritical. However, I believe there is obviously a time and a place for expressing your opinion; a soldier’s funeral is certainly not the time or the place.
Some of the most important movements in our history have risen out of the modest limits we place on speech. The civil rights and women’s rights movements were controversial at the time but look at all of the good they produced. We should not place limits on speech because we won’t know what we might prevent giving rise to. We need to continue to value political freedom because it is something that makes our country unique.

That being said, I would not punish the speakers who created the “Ecce Homo” speech or Jyllands-Posten. As I stated earlier, we cannot worry that everything we say will offend someone. If that were the case, we would never be able to speak. Especially when it comes to speaking about religion, it seems that we can never be too careful because it seems as though everything said about religion becomes offensive to someone.

As far as teaching intelligent design in public school, I think that religion absolutely needs to be kept out of public schools. As protective (and sometimes crazy) people can be about their religion, they are probably more protective (and potentially crazy) when it comes to their children. Bringing the education of their children about religion is asking for controversy. And bringing the issue of religion into what is taught as a scientific matter would be wrong. I believe in a private school one could discuss the strengths and weakness of evolution/intelligent design but absolutely not in a public school. I have heard of schools that allow parents to sign a permission slip for students to opt out of the evolution part of the curriculum and as much as I think that children need to be exposed to ideas other than those of their parents, this could be a much more reasonable way to solve the problems that not teaching intelligent design or creationism in a school might create for some.