TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK
April 3, 2016 Acts 5: 27-31
Dean Feldmeyer
In 1633, astronomer and scientist, Galileo Galilei published his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and created an immediate firestorm in the Roman Catholic church. His intention had been to compare two world views: One with the sun at the center of the solar system and another with the earth at the center.
Church officials believed, however, that he gave too much weight to the “heliocentric” or Copernican, sun-centered world view which was, they believed, contrary to Holy Scripture and, therefore, blasphemous.
He was put on trial by the Inquisition, forced to recant (which saved him from being burned at the stake) and spent the rest of his life under house arrest where he died, eight years later at the age of 77.[1]
In November of 1992, Pope John Paul II, posthumously pardoned Galileo and admitted that the astronomer’s observations about the nature of the solar system were, in fact, correct.
A mere 359 years after Galileo was convicted by the Inquisition, “John Paul said the theologians who condemned Galileo did not recognize the formal distinction between the Bible and its interpretation. ‘This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.’ Though the Pope acknowledged that the Church had done Galileo a wrong, he said the 17th-century theologians were working with the knowledge available to them at the time.”[2]
What he failed to mention was, that Galileo was also working with the knowledge available to them at the time.
In 1988, author Salman Rushdie published his fourth novel, a goal rarely achieved in the literary world. And not only did he write it and get it published, it became a best seller. And it caused outrage around the world and put a target on Rushdie’s back when Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini called for his assassination.
The charge against Rushdie was “blasphemy.” His novel, The Satanic Verses, was partly based on the life of the Prophet Mohammed. It was subsequently banned in India and burned in the United Kingdom.
And the controversy has not gone away. It continues to hound him. In 2012, nearly 25 years after the publication of The Satanic Verses, he “pulled out of a speaking engagement at the Jaipur literature festival amid renewed calls for his assassination.”[3]
Rather than use debate and argumentation to prove that the novel was not worth reading or was, at least, an inaccurate depiction of the Prophet, the leaders of radical, conservative Islam chose, instead, to quiet their adversary with threats of violence and, consequently, turned Rushdie’s book into a best seller.
THE POWER TO SILENCE
In today’s reading form Acts, Peter and the apostles, have been dragged before the Sanhedrin, the theocratic court made up of the high priests of the temple. The charge against the apostles: Heresy, blasphemy, disobedience, and embarrassing the high priests.
Verse 27 says that the Sanhedrin questioned them, but in the next verse what we hear is not a question but an accusation:
“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.” (5:28)
Two things become evident, here:
(1.) The Jewish leaders do not want the apostles teaching or preaching in Jesus’ name, but instead of arguing their case, instead of pointing out to the people how the Apostles are wrong and their claims are baseless, instead of showing how the priests’ point of view is right and that they are blameless in the death of Jesus, they take the easy road. They attempt to censor the Apostles. They use their position of power to control and silence those who speak words of dissent, who preach a different message than their own.
(2.) And the reason the high priests are doing this, the reason they are trying to censor the Apostles is that the message the Apostles are preaching is embarrassing. It makes them look shortsighted, arrogant, and just plain out wrong. It may even make them look evil.
So their message to the Apostles is clear: You’d better stop embarrassing us with your teaching about Jesus or there is going to be trouble for you. We can do for you what we did for him if you don’t watch what you’re about.
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Demonstrandum) It is thus proven. In each of the above cases people in power, who have the resources and the intelligence to enter into robust debate choose, instead, to simply use their power to silence their opposition.
MORE SPEECH IS BETTER SPEECH
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says this about freedom of speech: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” We are guaranteed, by the constitution, the right to speak our minds without fear of censorship or retaliation from the government. Those last three words are important: “from the government.”
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to publish a book about whatever you want to write about. But it doesn’t guarantee you a publisher. It doesn’t require Simon and Schuster to publish your book and their refusal to do so is not censorship, its business.
If you want to publish it and sell it, or give it away, you are free to do so. The government will not stop you. By law, it cannot. Yes, yes, there are exceptions. Liable and national secrets are not allowed. But, by and large, we believe that the answer to bad or inappropriate speech is more speech, better speech, more powerful and appropriate speech.
And not only does the first amendment protect our right to speak, it protects our right to listen, to hear, to read and see. Not only do you have the right to publish that book, but I also have the right to read it. The government can’t be the filter for what I see and hear. I’m the only one who can serve as my filter.
In a general sense, this philosophy of free speech is found not just in government but in all aspects of American life and American speech – scientific speech, political speech, religious speech. We are guaranteed the right to speak our minds and hear what is spoken. But with that right comes the responsibility to let others speak their minds even if their speech is offensive to us.
In a March 20 essay conservative, Washington Post political columnist Charles Krauthammer rightly points out that both sides in this year’s political campaign are guilty of choosing power censorship over free speech.
He is right when he says that when demonstrators shout and disrupt Donald Trump’s rallies so that he can’t be heard or the rally can’t continue, this is a form of censorship that is unacceptable in a free, democratic state and, while his comparison of these demonstrators with Nazis and Bolsheviks is absurd, he is right in condemning their actions.
Demonstrators from the far left often excuse their actions by saying that Trump’s speech is dangerous and must be “shut down.” But far more dangerous is a country where those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum can silence their opponents through the use of verbal violence and physical intimidation.
Krauthammer also points out, however, that these same threats of violence and physical intimidation are not limited to the left. They saturate Donald Trump’s rallies and he is doing nothing to correct that situation. In fact, he is feeding into it. When he talks about demonstrators being carried out on stretchers, smashing people’s faces, and paying the legal fees for those who do violence to those who challenge him, he is enabling the air of menace that has come to permeate our national politics.
The solution to that problem, however, is not to be found in censorship but in robust, civil debate.
FREEDOM OF PRESS AND PULPIT
I have been a professional writer for more than 30 years and I have preached from a free pulpit for a decade more. I have benefited, indeed, the church of Jesus Christ has benefited from the freedoms of expression that are guaranteed in the American constitution.
Oh, the church would go on even without those freedoms, as it did in Soviet Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany, and early Roman Empire. It would operate underground and in secret. The people of God would come together to worship, sing hymns, eat together, and study scripture even if it meant risking arrest and incarceration. For we are driven by a higher power and, like the Apostles who stood before the Sanhedrin two thousand years ago, we dare not keep that good news that is Jesus Christ to ourselves.
The freedom of the pulpit and the press which we enjoy has contributed to the making of a strong and healthy Christianity in the United States and, for that reason, we are loath to close the door on the freedom of speech for others even when we vehemently disagree with them.
We realize that if we shut down the speeches of others because we find them offensive or dangerous, the same can be done to us if others find what we say to be offensive or dangerous, as has often been the case throughout our history.
The first time I heard the soundtrack from the musical “The Book of Mormon” I winced and cringed. I thought, “How can they get away with this? There must be thousands of Mormons ready to march on New York City, picket the theater, and demand that the musical be condemned and stopped.”
But the reality was nearly the opposite.
“The Book of Mormon” it turns out, has done a lot more for the Mormon faith than it perhaps intended to do. Trey Parker and Matt Stone's salty, often obscene, and hilarious sendup of not just Mormonism but all of organized religion has been a huge hit, garnering several Tony awards. And, from Salt Lake City, state capital of Utah and home of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the only sound we have heard is crickets chirping in the distance.
As it turns out, Mormons know how to take a joke. They have even bought advertising space in the musical's program. But that's exactly what Stone and Parker were expecting. “We grew up with Mormons, and their MO is to beat you by being kinder than you and higher than you,” Parker says.[4]
All Gods’ children could take a lesson from the Mormons on this one. Let them talk, let them make jokes, let them ridicule, deride, and demean us. Let them disagree with us. Let them crucify us. We can take it.
Three days later, we’ll just rise again and the joke will be on them.
Dean Feldmeyer
Wilmington, Ohio
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html
[3] http://brianpellot.religionnews.com/2013/10/04/12-blasphemous-artworks-censored-vandalized-angry-believers/
[4] https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/i-asked-some-mormons-what-they-thought-about-the-book-of-mormon