[net.religion] The Freedom to Believe

debray (04/01/83)

" ... Articles which deny a people their right to believe what they want have 
      no  business being published. ... "


The question, of course, is : who is to decide as to whether a given article
is to be suppressed ?

Let me say, before I go any further, that I am a staunch supporter of the
individual's fundamental right to the freedoms of speech, belief etc. I can
sympathize with FtG about the anti-Semitic article. However, I don't see
censorship as an acceptable solution.

To begin with, censorship in the classical style would amount to the imposition
of one person's (the censor's) beliefs over the authors : and no one person, I
feel, can be perfect. This, I feel, is the worst of all the possible 
alternatives.

Collective censorship (e.g. ostracism) amounts to, in a way, an imposition, of
the beliefs of the majority, on the individual. Sure, that's what living in a
society is all about : you give a little, you get a little. But in the
abstract, how *can* one judge what's right and wrong? Witness poor Galileo!
Societal judgements aren't infallible.

The reason I'm dwelling on this is that if I am to pass judgement, I should
know that I'm qualified to do so. While I'm opposed to having people impose
their beliefs on others, were I to try and impose *this* belief of mine upon
others, the hypocrisy of that act would remove any moral qualification I
might have had for that in the first place. The whole exercise would be
rendered fruitless.

The least unattractive alternative seems to me to be this : let them say
what they want. If someone says something you don't agree with, try to
discuss it rationally with him (read "him/her") : if he does, well, you're
getting somewhere ; if not, he probably isn't worth wasting intellectual
time on anyway.

Those are *my* beliefs ; or metabeliefs ... but they're beliefs, too!

						Saumya K. Debray
						SUNY at Stony Brook
						allegra!sbcs!debray

dje (04/08/83)

I, too, wish to express a strong support for the freedom of an individual
to believe as (s)he pleases and to express these beliefs publicly without
being censored.

When should expression be suppressed?  The "fire in a crowded theater"
limitation seems to be as sensible as any place to draw the line.

In the context of religion, I find it disturbing that many people use their
freedom of expression to disparage others' beliefs or as a vehicle for
imposing one's own beliefs on others.  

This newsgroup would be much more pleasant to read if authors kept the
following distinction in mind.  One can freely disagree with others'
beliefs; one may PERSONALLY hold them as self-contradictory or morally
objectionable or just plain silly.  But let's try to avoid submissions
with the intent or effect of de-legitimizing others' beliefs and the
right to express them.

			Dave Ellis
			Bell Labs, Piscataway NJ
			...!harpo!npoiv!npois!houxm!5941ux!dje
			...!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!5941ux!dje