‘Bigotry’ is
intolerance of those holding a position other than one’s own. Such a definition belies a paradox: the
person who claims another is a ‘bigot’ is in danger of being intolerant him or
herself in making the charge and becomes a bigot when enacting restrictions of
one sort or another on a person who holds a contrasting viewpoint. The issue boils down to power—as Friedrich
Nietzsche would readily have pointed out were he alive today. Whoever has managed to control the moral high
ground as far as society is concerned gets to call the other a ‘bigot’.
Examples multiply
by the day. The insistence that a baker
bake a cake for a homosexual’s ‘wedding’ is presented as a morally superior act
to allowing the baker to choose to participate or not based on his or her conscience. The baker who refuses is said to be a ‘bigot’:
not the one forcing the baker to bake a cake against his beliefs but the baker
refusing to bake the cake is said to be the ‘bigot’. The issue is merely one of social power.
In a moment of
unusual clarity of thought in the West’s redefinition of ‘freedom’ in a
postmodern and post-Christian context, the Appeal Court of British Columbia has ruled in favour of
Trinity Western University’s right to insist that its students abide by the
conviction that the only appropriate place for sex is within a marriage between
a man and a woman.[1] In their ruling, the court tackled the question
of bigotry and its relation to freedom (without mentioning the problematic word):
"A society that does not admit... and accommodate
differences cannot be a free and democratic society, one in which its citizens
are free to think, to disagree, to debate and to challenge the accepted view
without fear of reprisal…. This case demonstrates that a well-intentioned
majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism can, if unchecked,
impose its views on the minority in a manner that is in, [sic] itself,
intolerant and illiberal."
As I
have argued elsewhere, the underlying issue is the relationship between conscience
and freedom.[2] The development of a politic that affirms
freedom is dependent on a defense of conscience. Enforced freedom is not freedom. The West’s defense of conscience, as I
attempted to argue earlier, was dependent on a Christian perspective—even against
practices in so-called ‘Christian’ nations where anything but freedom of
conscience was permitted. Nevertheless,
the Christian perspective that
morality is based on faith—on belief—requires a perspective that defends the
freedom of conscience. Christianity has
to do with witness to the Good News—proclamation—and
the response of faith. An enforced faith is not a faith; an enforced
morality is not moral. People need to be
persuaded to the faith.
This
does not mean that laws cannot be enacted to hold back the evil of
society. Such laws need to be enacted,
as every society has recognized. This is
the role of government (Rom. 13.1-7). The
challenge of society is to balance the freedom of conscience with the rule of
law. Where this becomes imbalanced is
precisely where the West has increasingly gone in its judgements that override
conscience; and this is where the requirement to support others’ views and practices
opposed to one’s own becomes intolerance and, if one wishes to use the word, ‘bigotry’.[3] Such persecution of the righteous because of
their consciences is described in apocalyptic terms in Daniel and Revelation
(cf. Esther). Lot’s refusal to go along
with the men of Sodom’s customs made Lot out to be the bigot: he was considered
to be intolerant of their time-honoured practice of same-sex acts (Genesis
19.9). Yet, on another reckoning, the
men of Sodom were the bigots in their intolerance of Lot and his morality.
Christians
call for a faith-based moral life—not simply freedom of conscience. They advocate a particular, Biblically based
ethic. Yet, to live this way, they
affirm freedom of conscience so that they might live according to God’s Law
above all else and even at times over against society’s customs and laws. They do not hold freedom of conscience above
their ethics, as though a society that permits infanticide or abortion, e.g.,
is moral simply because people have the right to choose. Instead, they recognize that the inclination
of human hearts is wicked (Gen. 6.5): giving such people unrestrained freedom
is destructive and inevitably falls under divine judgement. God calls for holiness and righteousness, not
human freedom per se.
Thus,
the challenge is to call for righteousness behaviour while affirming that
morality is not just a matter of actions but willed actions (as Immanuel Kant
argued). The moral act is a willed act
that is moral. Where the line is crossed is where society makes it impossible without
reprisals to live a moral life, where people are required to engage in immoral
acts against their consciences. Just
here, people’s consciences are oppressed in the name of freedom, and they are
coerced to do immoral things against their will.
When Sodom reached this stage of its immoral slide into turpitude,
trying to force Lot to act against his conscience in conformity with its
socially approved practices, Lot had to flee the city.
[1] James Macintyre, ‘Christian
University Wins Legal Battle Over Ban On Sex Outside Hterosexual Marriage,’ Christian
Today (2 November, 2016); online: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.university.wins.legal.battle.over.ban.on.sex.outside.heterosexual.marriage/99588.htm
(accessed 17 November 2016).
[2] Rollin G. Grams, ‘The Changing
Meaning of Freedom: From Conscience to Coercion’, BibleandMission Blog (http://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/09/christian-mission-to-west-changing.html).
[3] Cf. European attempts to limit
freedom of speech, e.g. See the recent
article on this by Judith Bergman, ‘Let’s End Free Speech! Are European Countries Now Police States?” Gatestone Institute (17 November 2016);
online: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9311/europe-free-speech
(accessed 17 November, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment