Where's the tyranny?
Here is a link to a speech by N.T. Wright to the British House of Lords. (I believe I referenced something similar a while ago with little response, but I'll try it again.) It deals with the "change of moral climate" facing Britain's legislative body. (Canada failed in its first such facing of moral climate change, historical hubris, and governmental tyranny by passing same-sex legislation. For the record, the issue is not about sexuality; the issue is about the whims of government and their desire to create a people in its image. Insightful homosexuals would realize that such precedence does not bode well for the progress of same-sex marriage because whims of gov't change. True progress for any position (including a religion) cannot be legislated. Anyway....)
The issue Wright brings up is freedom of speech and coupling it with responsibility. He cites the issue of hate-speech regarding sexuality, but accurately broadens it to all thought-crime. Change in moral climate to raise hurt-feelings to a chargeable offense has brought about tyranny; perhaps my good debating partner from seminary, James (aka Jacques), would call it "The tyranny of the offended."
Anyway, I'm anxious to hear some thoughts. Perhaps some of the apologists would take issue with his rejection of Enlightenment thought. Perhaps the pomos will hate the fact that he wants to engage in constructive dialogue. Perhaps the Mennos will hate the fact that he's in the House of Lords to begin with! :)
The issue Wright brings up is freedom of speech and coupling it with responsibility. He cites the issue of hate-speech regarding sexuality, but accurately broadens it to all thought-crime. Change in moral climate to raise hurt-feelings to a chargeable offense has brought about tyranny; perhaps my good debating partner from seminary, James (aka Jacques), would call it "The tyranny of the offended."
Anyway, I'm anxious to hear some thoughts. Perhaps some of the apologists would take issue with his rejection of Enlightenment thought. Perhaps the pomos will hate the fact that he wants to engage in constructive dialogue. Perhaps the Mennos will hate the fact that he's in the House of Lords to begin with! :)
posted by Aaron Perry at
9:25 AM
5 Comments:
Lord Durham is (w)right, of course. "Tyranny of the offended" is the best line I've heard in a while.
Perhaps we can paraphrase Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it until it hurts someone's feelings."
Thanks for posting the link.
SGFMB
I was watching the news last night and one of the guests was saying the US shouldn't sell those ports to the United Arab Emirates specifically because they, as buyers, are Arabs like the 9-11 terrorists.
The other 2 individuals were noticeably awkward in their responses, not wanting to offend anyone.
There is a tryanny of the offended to some degree in the current cultural landscape of developed countries. Maybe it comes from a misunderstanding of the word 'tolerance'. Whatever the case, it stifles freedom, at least for the majority (and as you pointed out, the majority changes, so it's not a good deal for anyone)
what an excellent oration. i need to read more of things like this, as i am someone who tends to side with the victimized without first understanding the situation.
but, i do worry that this anti-tyranny of the offended philosophy could cause a lot of harm if taken to the opposite extreme, wherein anyone who claims offence has to over-prove their case for being offended, before others affirm their right to vindication under the law.
i think part of wright's issue is that offense is not the right rubric in which to consult the matter. the issue is truth and that, he says, is not limited to the Enlightenment, but practiced and found in meaningful dialogue. meaningful dialogue is impossible with offending.
oh. well, at least i understood 25% correctly! ha.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home