Domingo, 03 de Março de 2024
Tamanho do Texto


Freedom of Expression

Every passing day, this world sinks deeper into moral confusion, political and philosophical. In this last point, one of Chaos evidence (at least for me) was the way, recently, the media, the authorities and celebrities in general began to use the phrase "freedom of expression".

Always conceived (intuitively) the meaning of this formula as covering at least in part, the enjoyment of the right to disagree with someone - whether in the political, religious, ethical or philosophical - and patients may express this disagreement openly without being punished that is why. Currently, however, this definition has to be reworked to house new elements, if we consider how the media seems to understand now this "freedom of expression".

Note well: in recent months, the formula "freedom of expression" has become common in the media and in people's mouths for the murder of the cartoonists of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo. Cartoonists were shot by Islamic radicals, in retaliation to the cartoons that made Muhammad, a joke that offended the scruples of Muslims.

The designers of Charlie Hebdo, say by the way, were disrespectful to the extreme with any religion, including (and perhaps most shockingly) Christianity. They were blasphemous cartoons, usually with very low moral content, no matter one bit if they were injured or not faith so dear to people. As the religious feeling is something that you do not play when the disrespect of those designers by faith encountered abuse of radicals for life, he gave in: tragedy, pain and death.

Therefore, the international press and the political authorities condemned (correctly) the attack, saying (strangely) that the designers of Charlie Hebdo had the right to "freedom of expression". This is what, beyond the cruelty of the slaughter, caused me wonder: how, from those episodes, used the phrase "freedom of expression". As I said before this formula seemed just mean the enjoyment of the right to disagree with someone openly without being punished for it. Now, however, the concept expanded. Apparently, in postmodern little heads, freedom of speech is the right to disagree with someone disrespecting your beliefs, ridiculing their actions and wounding his scruples without moral control!

The problem with this definition, however, is that it is not only absurd in its content. It is also absurd in how it is applied, which requires even more worked. Let me explain better: imagine that a Christian magazine to publish a strip ridiculing homosexuals. What the media, the authorities and intellectuals would say? Chance affirm that Christian magazine had the right to enjoy their "free speech"? Of course not! In this case, the new concept would not apply at all! In his place, we would hear words like "homophobia", "prejudice," "ignorance," "intolerance," "bigotry", etc. Maybe even accuse the magazine of being Nazi, racist, fundamentalist and criminal. Lawsuits were filed against Christians cartoonists and all that with the approval of newspapers and politicians. Also who was seen with a copy of that journal would be broken down or maybe even beaten on the street.

Well, it is obvious that all this would happen (anyone doubts?), I suppose that even the moderninho concept of "freedom of expression" must be expanded again, getting even more incongruous. I propose the following: Freedom of expression is the right to disagree with someone disrespecting your beliefs, ridiculing their actions and wounding his scruples, provided that such attacks do not offend the interests of the media and the homosexuals. If this occurs, will not be discussed in more freedom of expression, but rather in prejudice and ignorance.

Ready! Now we come to the complete concept. Everyone understood? Cartoonists who ridicule the Trinity are open-minded people and have the right to express themselves that way. Have the cartoonists who ridicule homosexuality are biased and must be repressed.

What great progress our society has made ethics and legal-philosophical area! Without a fixed benchmark for measuring what is right, the standard of justice created by those who have more power becomes malleable and amorphous (they can invent, modify or annul what they think right) and, to make matters worse, this pattern snotlout is only applicable in some cases depending on the convenience.

We Christians, unlike all this, we believe that every freedom should be limited by love and sensitivity to what builds and what is appropriate for a follower of Jesus. Paul was free to eat whatever he wanted, but he said that if the eating of meat would cause someone to grieve, he never botaria a steak in the mouth (1 Cor 8:13). He said that believers are free to do, but that freedom must be lived wisely, taking the good disciple to do only what builds, what suits and what does not bring slavery (1 Cor 6:12; 10:23).

Thus, from the scriptures, believers can formulate a correct concept, high and fair "freedom of expression". I will build a risk here: Freedom of expression is the right to disagree with beliefs, ideas and behavior without being punished for it, doing it, however, within the limits of love and decency (which may even involve the mood ), targeting the correction, the building and people's happiness.

Does the cartoonists and their friends even want that freedom?

Pr. Marcos Granconato
Soli Deo gloria

Este site é melhor visualizado em Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome ou Opera.
© Copyright 2009, todos os direitos reservados.
Igreja Batista Redenção.