Free Speech and Toleration

According to this post (and the stories to which it links), a court in Australia has ruled that Pastor Daniel Scot violated the "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" by "ma[king] fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct" in a seminar presentation.  According to the judge,  Scot's criticisms were not made "in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims' religious beliefs; it was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their god, Allah, the prophet Mohammed, and in general Muslim beliefs and practices."  Apparently, the Act allows "genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific" discussion of religious beliefs.  Scot, however, went too far.

The post notes that "Catholics and mainline churches have supported the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" and also "the criminal charges against . . . Scot."

This story returns us to earlier discussions about proselytism, evangelism, coercion, and freedom.  I am inclined to think that Christians should -- for Christian reasons -- take care to make sure that their efforts at faithful witness and evangelism are always consistent with respect for hearers' dignity.  To paraphrase Professor John Witte, Christians need to be attentive to the need to balance the Great Commission and the Golden Rule.  That said, it strikes me that the liberal state is and ought to be utterly incompetent in striking and enforcing this balance.

Rick

"Pastor Scot, throughout the seminar, made fun of Muslim beliefs and conduct," Higgins wrote. "It was done not in the context of a serious discussion of Muslims' religious beliefs; it was presented in a way which is essentially hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people, their god, Allah, the prophet Mohammed, and in general Muslim beliefs and practices."

The problem, Higgins said, was that Scot argued that Wahhabist Islam is the true Islam, and that more moderate, Western forms are compromises of what the Qur'an really teaches.