Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Why Freedom of Speech is More Important Than Religious Sensa

No description

Student Student

on 9 June 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Why Freedom of Speech is More Important Than Religious Sensa

Why Freedom of Speech is More Important Than Religious Sensitivities.
Change in society can only be brought through freedom of speech, as that is how new religions, ideas and perspectives are born.

Freedom of expression is vital to bring about any sort of change in society.

People should realize that religion is someone's relationship with God, and not something to flaunt to others.
A person belonging to a certain religious group should have enough faith and maturity, that they don't take offense if someone contradicts their personal beliefs.
• Why are religious creeds given special license to block others freedom of expression?
We live in a world of laws, supported by evidence on the basis of what can be perceived in the world around us.
This applies in the fields of politics, law, science and others.
Only when it comes to religion (and, possibly national identity) do we tolerate arguments made on the basis of unproven belief.
There is of course a role for fantasy in life but protests as a result of people pointing out that it is fantasy seems to be taking things a little far.
Society Cont.
The best known is of course the Catholic Church’s forcing Galileo to recant his research in the 17th century.

There is no need to seek out obscure fanatics for this purpose, mainstream religious figures seem to genuinely believe that the equality of women is still a difficult issue.
To take just one example, in 2012 the supposedly moderate and progressive Anglican Communion is still unsure as to whether the ability to be a senior manager should be determined on the basis of somebody’s gender.
With the exception of a handful that are in thrall to religious dominance, every nation state, company, charity, university and scholarly discipline has resolved this question and found itself better as a result.
Most religions haven’t even started the process. Now that’s offensive.
• People need to stop wearing their religion like a badge.

A person’s religion should be a private matter between them and their God.

People need to stop looking for reasons to get defensive. There will always be detractors – people that are not religious and are vocal about it.

These people have the right to not be religious and they also have the right to freedom of expression.
Religion Cont.
• If offensive statements are to be prohibited, then surely it should be a general rule.

Many secularists find it offensive that theists of all stripes assume that there can be no morality without divine instruction

So that could be the first set of offensive comments to go

Closely followed by religious opinions on what people should do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and the doctrines of salvation by faith.
Were politicians to take action to urge the blocking of free speech
On the rather more significant reasons for offense of misrepresentation of scientific data, libel, corruption of legal evidence or the, absolutely routine, misrepresentation of a political position
As President Obama did when calling Google, they would be written off as a lunatic.
However, dress the idea up in a cassock and everyone seems to think that there is a meaningful issue to be discussed.
There is no definable difference between saying something inaccurate or (in this case) impolitic about Nero, Plato, Sejong, Al’Khwarizmi or any other historical figure than about Christ, Mohammed or Moses
Other than the fact that the followers of the last three are more likely to resort to violence.
Since when did that become a moral argument?
The particular subjects areas often chosen by theists to find offensive make for an interesting list;
o Freedom of expression,
o The rule of law,
o Scientific progress,
o Medical progress,
o Artistic expression
There are remarkably few areas of human progress and development – intellectual or societal – that have not caused ‘offense’ in some religious community somewhere.
Full transcript