Lux Lucet

In 2019, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece “Why America needs a hate speech law.” One reason, apparently, is those dastardly Russians.  As WaPo tells us, the Russian government used our free speech against us by slipping “its destructive ideas into our media system.” Well, thank goodness WaPo is on the case! And at least we American’s don’t have to worry about our government slipping the ruling classes destructive ideas into our media system.  Nope. Everything that falls from the lips of congressmen, the White House, the Justice Department, and the CIA is gospel truth.  And if it weren’t so, WaPo would be the first one to tell us, right? 

The editorial grudgingly acknowledges that, yes, we do have this thing called the First Amendment and that it protects Americans God-given right to free speech.  But – and you knew there was a “but” coming – “the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era”  Even WaPo is well aware that hate speech laws are incongruent with our Constitution, so they have to fall back on the lame idea that for some vague reason free speech just isn’t compatible with the modern era. 

There are several problems with this line of thinking.  In the first place it exhibits a pragmatic rather than principled approach to civil rights.  If the First Amendment is no longer applicable because “it was designed for a simpler era,” what about all our other constitutionally guaranteed rights?  Would they not also be outdated?  Or are only some outdated while others are still operative?  If so, what are the criteria we use to determine which rights designed in a simpler era no longer apply in the 21^st century and which ones remain in effect?   

Second, the implied totalitarianism of this idea is disturbing.  If governments can control what you say, they can control what you think.  If governments control what you think, they control you. Of course, there are a lot of civil magistrates who see such a situation not so much as a problem to be avoided but as a goal to be desired. 

A third problem is who’s the judge of what is hate and what isn’t, what is misinformation and what isn’t.  If you lived in Europe prior the Reformation, the Roman Church-State had a lot to say about what was and wasn’t misinformation.  If you denied, say, the real presence of Christ in the mass, this was misinformation and you could very easily find yourself on the receiving end of some very nasty business.

A fourth problem is that, as the Westminster Confession puts it, “God alone is Lord of the conscience” (Chapter XX.2).  The Confession goes on to state, “and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if in matters of faith and worship.” Hate speech laws can very easily be used against Christians simply for their “crime” of teaching what the Word of God teaches on any number of subjects.  For example, there are numerous examples of pastors who have been arrested for preaching, accurately, that God condemns homosexuality. 

For example, street preacher Gordon Larmour was arrested by authorities in Scotland and accused of a hate crime for responding truthfully to a questioner about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality.   

This story was from 2017, but a more rigorous hate speech law is under consideration in the Scottish Parliament that, as it is being reported, would criminalize hate speech – however this is defined – “even if the offending words are uttered in someone’s private home.”   

Back in the bad old days of the Cold War, people in the West used to speak of the “free world” in contrast to the nations behind the “iron curtain.”  Nowadays, it seems as if a Soviet style iron curtain has fallen upon the West. 

J. K. Rowling, the popular author of the Harry Potter series, ran afoul of the Twitter mob for her support of the crazy notion that one’s sex is biologically determined, that it’s a real thing, and that it can’t be wished away by one’s choosing to identify as something else.   

In this country, many view the recent announcement by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of its intention to challenge systemic racial inequality as an abandonment of the organization’s historic stance on free speech.  I’ve never been a supporter of the ACLU and its socialist agenda, but it has managed to take and keep a principled stance on free speech.  But that seems to be changing.  According to a 2018 article in Reason Magazine, the ACLU was wavering on free speech then.  Why?  Some members of the organization thought that their defense of free speech was enabling white supremacists and hampering their pursuit of racial equality and justice.  Based on the ACLU’s recent announcement that its going to hold Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’ feet to the fire on issues of racial justice, it seems that the racial justice crowd won the internal battle over the free speech supporters. 

What is Cancel Culture?

When discussing Cancel Culture, it’s a good to first define the term.  What do we mean when we talk about cancel culture?  In an article titled “What is Cancel Culture,” the New York Post defined it as “the phenomenon of promoting the ‘cancelling’ of people, brands and even shows and movies due to what some consider to be offensive or problematic remarks or ideologies.” 

Robert Henderson writing in City Journal says that cancel culture is about “isolating people who have violated ideological rules about race or gender.” 

Dictionary.com defines cancel culture thus, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.”

Merriam-Webster gives the following definition of “cancel”: to withdraw one’s support for (someone, such as a celebrity, or something, such as a company) publicly and especially on social media.” 

In general, all these definitions tend to cluster around the idea that “cancelling” someone in the sense we’re talking about involves the public shaming and a withdrawal of support for a person or organization whose expressed opinions or actions are perceived to violate publicly acceptable norms. 

Perhaps it could be added, that cancel culture is especially related to the violation or perceived violation of progressive ideological norms. This is ironic, in that while progressives love to bash Evangelicals for their “puritanical” views, the most intolerant people in our society are those who loudly trumpet their tolerance. 

Disagree with the wokesters on any number of issues – transgenderism, feminism, race just to name a few – and you’ll find yourself in the hottest of hot water. 

Nothing New Under the Sun

An important point made in the New York Post story “What is cancel culture?”  is that cancel culture is not something new.  The article cites a professor of sociology saying that societies have punished people for behaving outside of perceived social norms for centuries and that cancel culture is just another variation.

Cancel Culture as Anti-Christianity

No system of thought is infinitely tolerant.  Take Christianity, the system that is responsible for gracing the world with the personal liberties that we in the West have all come, at least until recently, to assume are part of our inalienable heritage.  But Christianity, although it allows for great personal freedom, is not infinitely tolerate.  You can’t murder or steal in a Christian society.  Further, Christianity defines what murder and theft are.  Theft, for example, is government taking 10% or more of its citizens wealth in taxes.  Abortion is murder.  Christianity requires limited government, so it’s intolerant of tyranny.  Homosexuality is a sin that is rightfully suppressed in a Christian society, so this prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages or from allowing open homosexual activity. 

Since Christianity is in some respects intolerant, and since Christianity is true by virtue of its being revealed by God in his Word, the 66 books of the Bible, the problem with cancel culture does not lie in its intolerance.  The problem is that it is intolerant of the wrong things due to its being based, not on the revealed propositions found in the infallible, and inerrant Word of God, but on the ideas of unregenerate men claiming to have discovered truth outside of God’s revelation.

Another way in which cancel culture goes astray is in its viciousness.  When seeing the Antifa mobs in the streets or the Twitter mobs online, one is reminded of Jesus’ words, “Do not give what is holy to dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”  Christians show far greater respect to their ideological opponents than their opponents show to them. 

A third way in which the intolerance of cancel culture crowd goes wrong is in the objects of its intolerance.  Christian intolerance is focused on one’s actions.  Cancel culture intolerance is focused on ideology. 

In Romans 13, Paul writes that the civil magistrate is God’s minister and an avenger to execute wrath on those who practice evil.  As John Robbins pointed out, the focus here is on those who commit evil acts.  Paul does not say “those who think evil thoughts” but “him who practices evil.”  There is no crime thought in a Christian republic.  We leave that to the Marxists and to the wokesters.      

Pages: 1 2